Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA21266 (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 14:33:32 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 01:41:29 +1100 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIAEBHCNAA.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: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745BFB@inchna.stir.ac.uk> X-RBL-Warning: (orbs.dorkslayers.com) 203.2.192.84 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 Vincent Campbell
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 January 2001 12:40
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
>
>
> <All I am doing is bringing semiotics out of the 19th century and
> into the
> > 21st. It is Joe who refuses to move (and obviously you to).>
> >
> No, you're misunderstanding the absolute basic point of semiotics, but you
> either won't admit it, or can't see it.
>
or (a THIRD) you cannot understand what I am saying. Thats ok Vincent. dont
worry about it. :-)
> <friction. Electrons. Resistance. :-) The light is a PRODUCT of this
> and when
> > you try to analyse the PRODUCT you find that its characteristics varies
> > depending on context. A light bulb is just filiment and glass
> and a power
> > source.>
> >
> But in your system such things as electrons are intepretations,
> not entities
> existing independent of us.
>
QM favours my perspective over yours. :-) There is error in your
interpretation. you seem stuck in expressions for some reason... the sense
of *meaning* is 'within'. Electrons is the label we give to a set of signals
we get from our instruments; instruments designed to extend our senses since
all we can build are senses 'like us'. Nothing here says these patterns do
not exist 'out there', but the sense of meaning we impose on those patterns
comes from 'in here'. The word 'electron' is a sound pattern used to link to
feelings, images, 'facts' etc.
It is possible that 'electrons', 'photons', 'neutrons' are in fact the many
expressions of the SAME thing, CONTEXT determines the expression patterns
just as it is CONTEXT that causes you to see 'waves' or 'particles' IOW your
emphasis on EXPRESSION is blinding you from reflecting on METHODS of
perception; cognitive processes.
> > >> If the characteristics of light were entirely
> interpretation, lighbulbs
> > >> should have stopped working as soon as the particle/wave problem was
> > >> identified.
> >
> >
> <What the F*** are you on about? Boy you do have an interpretation
> problem...>
>
> If it's just intepretation, then when theories change, observations should
> change in your model.
> Whilst we may struggle to define the characteristics of light, there is no
> doubt it has characteristics independent of us, and the closer we get to
> understanding those characteristics, the more we are able to harness it to
> our own ends. That's precisely what we've done with lightbulbs, even the
> though the conception of light that existed at the time of their invention
> has been superseded, they still work.
>
> Interpretation is not the key to everything, Chris.
I did not say it was, I point to the one general method BEHIND all of the
interpretations. You keep missing that for some reason, you seem so STUCK at
the coalface, the expression level.
Let me quote you, Kip
> Thorne, to try and get it across to you:
>
> 'One might object that each set of laws in the sequence "looks" very
> different from the preceding set. (For example, the absolute time of
> Newtonian physics looks very different from the many different
> time flows of
> special relativity.) In the "looks" of the laws, there is no sign
> whatsoever of convergence. Why, then, should we expect convergence? The
> answer is that one must distinguish sharply between the
> predictions made by
> a set of laws and the mental images they convey (what the laws
> "look like").
> I expect convergence only in terms of predictions, but that is all that
> ultimately counts. The mental images (one absolute time in Newtonian
> physics versus many time flows in relativistic physics) are not
> important to
> the ultimate nature of reality.
>
> Why do I expect convergence in terms of predictions? Because all the
> evidence we have points to it. Each set of laws has a larger domain of
> validity than the sets that preceded it: Newton's laws work throughout the
> domain of everyday life, but not in physicists' particle accelerators and
> not in exotic parts of the distant universe, such as pulsars, quasars, and
> black holes; Einstein's general relativity laws work everywhere in our
> laboratories, and everywhere in the distant Universe, except deep inside
> black holes and in the big bang where the Universe was born; the laws of
> quantum gravity (which we do not yet understand at all well) may
> turn out to
> work out absolutely everywhere.'
>
> (from 'Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy', 1994,
> London: Papermac, pp: 85-6).
>
I suggest you slowly work you way through the recursive dichotomisation
process as well as the development process I have discussed in the past re
archetypal-to-typal and the TRANSFORMATIONS at the typal into more archeypal
etc all says EXACTLY what the above quote is TRYING to see with obviously no
knowledge on HOW 'in here' works. I can 'see' the template working on him.
> <Everything we CAN know is already known, pre-coded as a feeling
> (which we
> > may never experience). The interest is in all the expressions
> that elicit
> > those feelings.>
> >
> I thought so. You're nothing more than a true believer, Chris, and
> all the more pitiful for it, given what you believe.
>
> <You fail to see that this is BASE level stuff, there is no BEHIND
> here, this
> > is the bedrock level. The distinction of objects and
> relationships and the
> > patterns of dynamics is bedrock level.>
> >
> Let me try, again. Where, oh where is your_evidence_for this kind
> of statement, that your intepretation is the root truth, and
> everything else
> is wrong? Oh, and by the way, you contradict yourself here. Do a lexical
> analysis of your own posts to this group and see how many times
> you use the
> word 'behind' (including the one I'm replying to).
You miss the point again... I emphasise looking what is BEHIND expressions
and I go further by looking at what is BEHIND the BEHIND and eventually you
get down to the bedrock, the template, in that if I cut that level you lose
your mind :-)
Think deeper Vincent, so far you are still being 'lite'. :-)
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 - 14:35:19 GMT