Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA20250 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:26:43 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: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:34:45 +1100 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCICEBECNAA.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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <A4400389479FD3118C9400508B0FF230010D1A64@DELTA.newhouse.akzonobel.nl> X-RBL-Warning: (orbs.dorkslayers.com) 203.2.192.85 is listed by dorkslayers.com 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 Gatherer, D. (Derek)
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2001 10:34
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
>
>
> > Chris:
> > >From neurological research it has been discovered that humans
> > seem to derive
> > meaning by processing data using the what/where dichotomy
> >
> > Derek:
> > from what neurological research? A single reference will do.
>
> Chris:
> [references to work on what/where in visual perception]
>
> Derek:
> It seems like a convincing story for vision, but what I was driving at was
> can you then generalise to 'humans seem to derive meaning by
> processing data
> using the what/where dichotomy'. Visual perception is one thing,
> 'meaning'
> is quite a bit more than just vision.
>
Ah I get you. Well you could read Aristotle or any logic book (Ask Joe for
refs :-)) The act of particularising brings out the fundamental A/~A
processing but the ~A is a MANY not a ONE; IOW the relationship is 1:many
rather than 1:1 -- the many is shown to be variable. Logic is LOCAL in that
it is a system for working within a particular. It has more of a 1:1
EITHER/OR bias and so more abstract 1:many logics are not well developed
(Peirce was into this, multi variable logic etc).
Furthermore, due to heuristics when we categorise and so build a discipline
we can 'error' in what we deem is an object and what is a relationship. The
logic does not change since it is mechanistic, it does not care what P or Q
are. Bit like physics without considering thermodynamics etc i.e. Thus we
can have disciplines that observed from the 'outside' are 'illogical'. The
only way to unravel things is to move to a cognitive analysis.
That is what the template deals with. Do the following:
first level distinction: Object. This is a particularisation out of a
general (the context) and so the abstract notion of A/~A.
(particular/general, particular object/'other' objects,
object/relationships, foreground/background etc)
Second level distinction: Whole vs Part. This reflects the A/~A process
where A is a whole and ~A is a whole in a relationship to a greater whole
IOW a part. (the word 'part' reflects a superposition of a feeling, a wave
pattern for 'object' sharing space with a pattern for 'relationship'. This
space we label 'part')
So we have two concepts of objects, the purist one 'a whole' and the
relationships one 'a part'.
Now lets look at ~A. The 'pure' relationships emphasis favours the basic
distinctions of static (aka invariant) and dynamic (aka variant). (BTW this
points later to relational processes being easier to describe using wave
analogies. Emotions let you do this.)
Note how from a 'feeling' context a static relationship has a rigidity about
it -- as does the distinction of a whole. This suggests that the dynamic
relationship concept reflects the 'parts' side of things.
We thus have four distinctions of WHOLE, PART, STATIC RELATIONSHIP, DYNAMIC
RELATIONSHIP. But the cognitive analysis of the WHAT (objects) and WHERE
(Relationships) points to one more distinction, a distinction that is
many-formed in that the following dichotomies seem to share this same space:
text/context
positive/negative
foreground/background
expand/contract
This suggests we REFLECT the above basic distinctions using X as a variable
signifying one of the above set of 'shared' dichotomies i.e.:
whole as X (e.g. text, context)
part as X
static relationship as X
dynamic relationship as X
This gives us 8 basic distinctions. However we are dealing with FEELINGS and
we need to convert these terms in someway.
Analysis of dichotomisation (see template work) shows that the elements of
the dichotomy ,after you introduce recursion, get 'entangled' with each
other, they mix.
This simple distinction points us to a question, how many ways can I
describe in a general way the mixing of 'two' things? The general answer is
FOUR:
Whole -- sense of BLENDING, UNBLENDING, expansive/contractive BLENDING etc.
like whole numbers (but note they too have the same basic patterns where
whole = primes and relationships = composites)
Part -- sense of BOUNDING, a boundary, a 'cut', like rational numbers,
harmonics of the whole.
Static relationship -- sense of BONDING, an eternal tie. like irrational
numbers (PI, e, etc)
Dynamic relationship -- a sense of BINDING, transitions, transformations,
like imaginary numbers, contracts etc
When you add X to these you get 8 general 'states' of meaning (e.g.
'contractive blending' or a 'binding context' etc etc)
When you analyse various dichotomy-derived typologies (I used maths above,
at the websites I use esoteric types, psychology derived types, even our
approach to quantum mechanics) you find that you can structure these
typologies according to the above distinctions based on the cognitive
processes.
IOW with a template based on the four BBBBs (well more 8) you can overlay
The I Ching, MBTI, Astrology, Types of Numbers etc and you find that the
descriptions of the overlayed element contains within it the 'colour' of the
basic template. Thus the distinction of 'whole numbers' is reflected in the
distinction of 'heaven' or 'earth' in the I Ching in that the underlying
feeling is of blending, a sense of 'oneness'.
Thus all descriptions of a wholeness bias 'map' to the two 'pure' blending
positions (contractive, yin, context OR expansive, yang, text).
From this primitive set of 8 you form them into increasing complexity by
putting them into relationships with each other. Thus the 8 become 64. the
64 become 4096 the 4096 become 16 million etc
IOW a very complex system of meaning determination comes out of simple
distinctions. Furthermore since this is a fractal-like system, all levels of
analysis can use the SAME method and MANY words can point to ONE cell in the
basic template.
These patterns stem from the structure of dichotomy, not just the
oppositional types of formal logic but of the cooperative types --
branchings -- we get from the word used in its botony context. Thus the
WHAT/WHERE dichotomy (BTW convertable to more local terms of WHO and WHICH,
both out of WHAT, and WHEN and HOW, both out of WHERE) has the above
discussed characteristics as BASIC levels of meaning and to develop AI
systems with a sense of 'meaning' you start here. :-)
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 : Tue Jan 23 2001 - 13:28:26 GMT