Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA09652 (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 13:19:53 GMT Message-ID: <024601c082e3$036c7340$5eaefea9@cable.rcn.com> From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIKEPCCMAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: Cognitive, Logic analysis (was RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:14:53 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 7:19 AM
Subject: Cognitive, Logic analysis (was 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 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?)
Are you admitting that your idea of Science is pointless, Chris Lofting?
>
> 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).
You are again answering your own prepared questions, not actually any of
mine.
>
> 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
Unless by "OUR reality", you mean the Phenomena (that we experience at all,
both simulation from sensory input and also inner life in general), then
your above is linguistically meaningless.
Otherwise, what you are asserting,. Chris Lofting, is that Science is only
Phenomenology, the study of the Phenomena (that we experience at all, both
from sensory input and also inner life).
One Ontological theory of Phenomenology is Solipsism. The opposing view is
that there may indeed be any outside reality. And, if nothing else, Chris
Lofting, you do seem to treat the structured brain as substantially real.
And so, your rejection of Ontology seems somewhat inconsistent. The
Ontological investigations of Science, including NeuroScience, do often
pertain to Phenomenology.
I repeat another of my earlier questions:
Do you reject the possibility that any objective outside reality has
chronologically preceded perception and consciousness?
Solipsism and the opposing view is that there may indeed be any outside
reality, are both clear. Solipsism denies the reality of all others save
oneself as the sole actual perceiver. While the opposing view that there may
indeed be any outside reality, allows for differing perception of a single
objective reality by multiple perceivers. Relativism, however, denies
reality, but asserts multiple view points. This makes no logical sense. But
then, Relativism tends to deny even Logic.
One long standing question is about Logic, is as to whether Logic is a
mental faculty, or an aspect of reality. Consistent with the distinction
between reality and appearances, the answer must be that there are both
aspects of Logic, the Law of Nature and the mental faculty, an outgrowth
first from Natural Selection and then cultural advance. The mental faculty
functions to simulate the Law of Nature. And all this is consistent with
Evolutionary Epistemology.
Neuro-Phenomenology may well inform Logical Anthro-Methodology. But
Relativism is bankrupt. And it's Post Modern linguistics are atrocious.
> 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%.
This is yet another of your silly red herrings, Chris Lofting. I never
demanded proof. And I don't need it. Proof only exists in Logic and
Mathematics. Science at best may gather evidentiary support and/or
refutation.
Conjecturality does not negate Ontology.
>
> 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 - 13:21:36 GMT