Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA09492 (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 12:11:19 GMT From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: Cognitive, Logic analysis (was RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:19:10 +1100 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIKEPCCMAA.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: <012701c08216$0f68ed40$5eaefea9@cable.rcn.com> Importance: Normal Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Aaron Agassi
> Sent: Friday, 19 January 2001 11:48
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
>
<snip>
> Ah! Now we come to the crux of it!
>
> Is belief in an objective reality no more than faith? Or is the
> rejection of
> Solipsism at least a viable hypothesis?
>
> As for Ontology a no-no in Science, malarkey! You, Chris Lofting,
> embrace a
> Post Modernist Science. But that is by no means requisite. Indeed, I doubt
> it's viability at all! Science not investigating reality? Indeed!
> Then, what
> is the point at all?
>
Ah... you seek some sort of validation. A POINT. Very 'left brained', you
seek precision. Ok .. Imagine one. It is that simple. :-)What point would
YOU like it to be? Decide. Live it. Find a like-minded group. Feedback will
determine whether or not you are 'right' :-) Consensus then develops from
that... (have you ever read the Diceman?)
ALL disciplines share the SAME GENERAL cognitive processes, the
object/relationships distinctions and the pre-coded meanings that are linked
to them. LOCALISATION introduces nuances (genetic drift etc).
EVERY discipline is 'logical' in that the rules of logic determine processes
but this is combined with adaptive, often heuristic, processes that
establish 'traditions' such that the internal logic is interpreted by other
disciplines as 'irrational'.
To identify species-wide ways in which we identify the meaningful we cannot
use a logical method since, for example, the logic of Science sees the logic
in Astrology as 'irrational' since the logic of Science is based on a
literal mindset and assumes so is that of Astrology (which at the local
level many take it literally -- unfortunate but predicable :-))
IOW any logical analysis of discipline A from an interpretive context of
discipline B will contain in it 'laws' of thought. E.g.
Principle of Identity - if X is true, then it is true!
Principle of Contradiction - X cannot be BOTH true and false.
Principle of the Excluded Middle - ANY statement is EITHER true OR false.
This does not allow for 'what could be?' after all that is a question not a
proposition :-) This does not allow for qualitative decisions which can
often be deemed 'irrational' :-)
The point here is that BOTH/AND states exist, as do 'irrational' qualitative
decisions. The BOTH/AND world is 'wave-like' not 'particle-like' and any
particle-like 'logical' analysis gets nowwhere. But 'wave' states 'exist' as
superpositions where yes/no shares the same space until a localisation is
made to give you EITHER/OR -- the LOCAL expression. Thus our current LOGIC
is biased to the LOCAL. Every discipline uses logic but is seen from outside
as 'illogical'.
What this means is that to understand 'in here' we need to move to a
COGNITIVE level of analysis where the disciplines of Astrology, Mathematics,
Physics, Tarot, etc etc all share the same SPECIES WIDE cognitive processes.
This gets us into a realm where meaning is rooted in unconscious
neurological processes that have structure, namely the WHAT/WHERE
distinctions, aka object/relationship.
Applying this dichotomy recursively reveals sets of patterns that relate
directly to particular object/relationship states but at a too GENERAL
level. We thus LOCALISE, PARTICULARISE, these patterns by using sounds or
written symbols etc we create a particular discipline with an associated
lexicon and with that goes letters, syntax rules, grammar etc and so
'logic'.
From this we find that all of those disciplines, where one discipline sees
the other discipline as 'illogical'/irrational are in fact 'the same'; they
are all metaphors for describing object/relationship interactions and this
includes 'imagined' objects/relationships. (Spencer-Brown's calculus of
indication gets close to the EITHER/OR - BOTH/AND boundaries but needs
work).
These neurological processes establish belief systems such that within
Astrology there is 'logic' there is 'truth' since the METHOD of determining
'logic' or 'truth' will do so for ANY discipline. Feedback will validate and
that includes SOCIAL feedback. Thus Astrologers will always be around since
it is founded on dichotomisation, the fundamental METHOD we use as a
SPECIES, and with that method comes a set of GENERAL meanings. Thus the
'truth' you seek in philosophy/science is the SAME as that felt in Astrology
etc since it is a sensation, an emotion originating from territorial mapping
that has been abstracted to express 'truth'. Thus when philosophy/science
tries to assert the lack of 'truth' in Astrology they will fail due to their
logical approach; use a cognitive approach by explaining our species way of
determining meaning and you have a better chance of getting a decline in
Astrology etc (but what for, as a typology based on rich metaphors it is
very good. The problems are when the planet/star/birthime etc are taken too
literally).
Thus Science does NOT investigate reality, Science investigates OUR reality
and attempts to generalise its findings to 'outside' of us, to the past
pre-life and the future perhaps post-life. It tries to convert what could
bes into what will bes.
Science seeks the algorithms and formulas that are BEHIND expression, ANY
expression. From a psychological context Science seems to have emerged from
fear, from bad experiences in sensation seeking and so we make maps to aid
us. Thus Science is rooted in us as a method of problem solving without too
much emotion (or more so neutral level where + and - are balanced). If you
believe Science is there to discover 'truth', the 'absolute', no way. no can
do since it needs negation to do that and your 'truth' is absolute, negation
is not in the story. THAT points to FAITH in yourself or your FAITH in
another, either object (some discipline) or person (e,g, some God).
Good luck to you in your search Aaron. :-) All I cover is the cognitive
processes that lead to a belief in objective reality etc. I find no problem
with the belief but you cannot prove it 100%.
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
List Owner: http://www.egroups.com/group/semiosis
===============================================================
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 - 12:13:01 GMT