Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA09184 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 20 Jan 2001 10:00:47 GMT From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on... Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:08:38 +1100 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIKEOOCMAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-reply-to: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745BE9@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Importance: Normal Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
they contain references i.e. evidence to support the concepts; you just seem
too slow in reading them.
For brain stuff see http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/brefs.html Also see,
for esoteric/I Ching and NLP refs,
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/irefs.html for quantum-mind related
stuff see http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/wrefs.html
For text with specific refs see for example
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting/general.html
READ vincent. IF I had websites with NO backup refs then ok what you say has
value but I DO have support. perhaps your just too afraid to read them? :-)
Either get of your arse and do some reading or else shut up.
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
List Owner: http://www.egroups.com/group/semiosis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Vincent Campbell
> Sent: Friday, 19 January 2001 11:22
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
>
>
> How do light bulbs work Chris? (sorry that's light globes, for Aussies)
>
> Light gets refracted by things, but it's speed doesn't change. Light from
> stars close to our Sun is refracted by the gravity of our Sun, such that
> during a solar eclipse those stars move (convincing most doubters that
> Einstein was on the right lines, by the way). The faint wobble
> in the light
> from distant stars caused by planets orbiting them, is how we detect
> extra-solar planets.
>
> Of course experimental design rests on design, which influences the way
> findings are intepreted. Anyone, studying any discipline should
> know that.
> It's not about interpretation, Chris, it's about what really goes on out
> there in the universe, and our persistent efforts to represent such things
> in ways we can comprehend. What you seem to be saying it's all
> interpretation, but that you,a nd you alone, have uncovered the inherent
> structure of that interpretation.
>
> But, the key thing is, if you are going to try and identify a
> meta-structure
> that underlies and explains all possible forms of interpretation,
> there's a
> little thing, I'm not sure if you've heard of it, that's quite
> important if
> anyone is going to take you seriously. It's called evidence.
>
> Your posts, and your websites, don't contain evidence, they contain
> obfuscatory argument.
>
> Vincent
>
> > ----------
> > From: Chris Lofting
> > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 8:12 am
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
> [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> > > Of Vincent Campbell
> > > Sent: Thursday, 18 January 2001 11:54
> > > To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> > > Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
> > >
> > >
> > > <it is obvious from this remark that either you did not read the
> > > post or you
> > > > are a bit slow on the uptake today! :-)>
> > > >
> > > Of course I read all of your interminably long post. You can't
> > > deny what is
> > > the case just because it doesn't suit your model. Light displays
> > > characteristics of both waves and particles, even the Royal
> Institution
> > > Christmans lectures explained it in this way a couple of years ago.
> > >
> >
> > So? what has this to do with discussion on methods of interpretation?
> > There
> > is no assertion re the 'facts' but how the METHOD of analysis can create
> > misconceptions. When you create an experiment to test for something the
> > design and intent does not come out of nowhere, it comes out of
> your MODEL
> > of reality and that model has STRUCTURE and that structure is rooted in
> > your
> > neurolology and so the test validates the structure and more so REFLECTS
> > that structure.
> >
> > I am surprised that you cannot pick this up, you seem to be stuck in
> > expression mode incapable of differentiating!
> >
> > If I create an experiment based on dichotomisations (e.g. left
> slit, right
> > slit) and if wave patterns are a property of this METHOD regardless of
> > what
> > it is applied-to then there will be a case where I will see
> this property
> > expressed and so the property is not necessarily a property of 'out
> > there'.
> > IOW the method I used to experiment is the source of meaning and all
> > patterns I get from applying that method are meaningful only in the
> > context
> > of the method and not necessarily generalisable.
> >
> > It is the CONTEXT that determines the PERCEPTION but that context is
> > coloured by the METHOD. If I view things in a classical way then in
> > general
> > I will see 'classical' but when anomolies emerge I will drift into
> > non-classical and out of that create a 'new' paradigm.
> >
> > The point is that all POSSIBLE meanings are already coded in
> the neurology
> > as potentials based on potiental object/relationships
> distinctions and so
> > we
> > can 'refine' our maps buy studying these areas and then re-viewing our
> > maps.
> >
> > >
> > > > >> By the way, that reminds me that you never answered that
> > question
> > > > > >about the invariability of the speed of light.
> > > >
> > > <? I dont recall this at all, when, where?>
> > >
> > > OK, this was you on the 27/11/2000 (responding to Joe):-
> > >
> > > >>>BTW since you have not responded to previous emails (both off
> > > > > >>memetics and
> > > > > > >on) I suppose I will have to point you in the 'right'
> > > direction: the
> > > > > >> *fourth* concept that enables the encapsulation of the
> > > idea of a wave
> > > > is
> > > > > > >SPEED, something you leave out so as to retain your
> > > > > >>trichotomy... As usual
> > > > > >> all those who favour trichotomies fail to differentiate
> > relational
> > > > > >> processes, they lump them all together, Freud did, Popper did,
> > > > > >>and Peirce
> > > > > >> did. An education based on these sorts of works prior to
> > > analysis of
> > > > the
> > > > > > >neurology clouds your thinking...
> > > >
> > > Joe asked:
> > >
> > > >> How many speeds does light have, exactly?
> > >
> > > You said:
> > >
> > > >>>depends on context. in water is different to vaccuum is
> > > different to air.
> > >
> > > To my mind this is an inadequate, and inaccurate statement.
> > >
> >
> > No it isnt. Read up on EMF more, Chekov Radiation etc and while
> your at it
> > reflect on this that it is not light that has a limit but more
> that matter
> > cannot break its boundary -- expressed in De Broglie's work re matter
> > wave;
> > the limit is reflected in a prohibition on the frequency of the matter
> > wave
> > becoming infinite. In this universe this is expressed as a speed limit.
> >
> > Thus light in 'this' universe can vary in a 'multiverse'
> context -- not my
> > preferred model but it is a possible.
> >
> > Chris.
> >
> >
> >
> > ===============================================================
> > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> >
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 20 2001 - 10:02:30 GMT