Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA09992 (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 15:41:28 GMT From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Cognitive, Logic analysis (was RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 02:49:14 +1100 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIOEPECMAA.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: <024601c082e3$036c7340$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: Sunday, 21 January 2001 12:15
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Cognitive, Logic analysis (was RE: ....and the beat goes on
> and on and on...)
>
<snip>
> 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.
>
My so called rejection of ontology and the 'objective reality' concept is
purely based on a general claim to it being provable. Your note at the end
of this re you dont care (as in you do not want proof) is fine. Your
rhetoric came across as if you did;it comes across as VERY EITHER/OR 100%.
As I keep saying, the personal experience is all you can get. Beyond that we
talk about ontology, about being and objective reality intensly but the
moment you make it a context, a discipline, a philosophy, then you move away
from the 'moment' of experiencing it for yourself to conjectures. This gets
you into 'Why' but 'Why' is a value judgement and in an objective sense
useless :-)
I am not interested in the expressions but more so the cognitive processes
that lead to those expressions, thus I can show you a path of development of
territoral mapping etc to the feeling of 'truth'; but as to 'Being' etc etc
read Heidegger :-) (although his expressions are rooted in recursion of the
dasein/mitsein dichotomy).
I cannot help you find the point, all I can do is guide by pointing to
patterns that may be illusions in that they stem from the METHOD of analysis
and may thus be 'false'. The template acts as a guide. Simple. By using it
you may get to the 'point' sooner by removing a lot of chaff leaving you
wheat.
I am intrigued though re your intensity in trying to find 'meaning'; if it
is a problem for you then surrender to some god for a year or two..'grok'
the experience and see how you feel at the end...or are you a true 'identity
seeker', incapable of finding identity since to find it means to lose
yourself?.
> I repeat another of my earlier questions:
> Do you reject the possibility that any objective outside reality has
> chronologically preceded perception and consciousness?
>
no idea. not interested. simple. there is a human history going back a LONG
time. I would say that external memory (books etc) has got out of hand and
so trying to interprete the world from a philosophy base 5000 years old in a
technology base moving into the 21st century is a serious problem to the
extant that our interpretations of things are 'clouded'. So you could burn
all books pre 1970s and we would restore the general concepts VERY quickly
and at the same time throw out a lot of 'crap'.
I suppose I look more to the future, the past is dead. You can learn general
concepts from the past but the particulars are often replaced by new
discoveries etc. The works of art, poetry. paintings etc are cultural icons
that create feelings that in general are repeatable and so if these works
are lost other works come along that create the same sort of feelings,
nothing is lost per se in that all meaning is sourced 'in here'.
Same thing for the esoteric disciplines, if I burnt all of the Astrology
books, Tarot etc etc works of the same type would soon emerge. These sorts
of metaphors are natural, the only problem is when they are taken too
literally.
The emphasis on quality, on history, tradition etc leads to people paying
millions for paintings when 3/4 of the planet are suffering with lack of
basic necessities and that is disgusting. This reflects the decadence that
emerges from too much 'culture'; you need to prune every now and then :-)
Same problem with common law, too much precedence, past interpretations,
'drowns' decision making, courts fill up and it all becomes very 'BOTH/AND'
:-)
My only interest in the past deals with cognitive development, evolution etc
that is probably because my work shows how ideas like 'the big bang' or
'wave/particle duality' etc can emerge from thinking alone and as such need
not necessarily be as portrayed -- we are still creating metaphors to
describe objects and relationships. That said if the method results from
adaption then it reflects 'out there' and so studying the method rather than
the expressions could benefit our map making.
> 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.
>
As I have said above, and said at my websites etc our method of determining
meaning is 'in here' but if we have adapted to the environment then it
reflects 'out there',or more so it reflects methods used 'out there' and the
patterns that these create are then tied to patterns of emotion allowing for
resonance. I cannot imagine any other basic distinctions than objects (the
WHAT) and relationships (the WHERE). Apply the dichotomy recursively and out
pop more complex BOTH/AND forms that in the context in which they emerge can
be interpreted as if EITHER/OR.
This would 'fit' our current knowledge of cognition although the other model
is where the natural dichotomy created by our primary senses
(vision/audition) can force these sorts of perceptions upon us. That said,
both the visual and audition make refined distinctions of text
(object/particle) and context (field/relationships/waves) suggesting that
the A/~A distinction is tied into each sense and as such precedes the
dichotomy.
Out of these cognitive processes can develop logic but propositional and
predicate calculus are very 'EITHER/OR' in thinking, even the ALL /SOME
distinctions have a rigidity about them.. and then to map the logic in
emotions.. well, here we get into wave patterns and so superpositions.
Indicative calculus can help in that we seem to deal with BOTH/AND by
oscillating on 'simple' EITHER/ORs. There is a lot of work to be done in
this area and it gets into complexity/chaos stuff.
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 - 15:43:09 GMT