Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA22681 (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 20:58:28 GMT Message-ID: <000801c0857e$7243e6c0$5eaefea9@cable.rcn.com> From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745BFC@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Subject: Re: ....and the beat goes on and on and on... Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:52:49 -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: "Vincent Campbell" <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 10:59 AM
Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
> <or (a THIRD) you cannot understand what I am saying. Thats ok
> Vincent. dont
> > worry about it. :-)>
> >
> The more one reads your responses the more pissed off one gets.
> Your utterly misplaced smugness demonstrates only your own stupidity. I
ask
> again, name a single semiotician who has expressed on record concurrence
> with your (mis)understanding and interpretation of the field.
>
>
> <QM favours my perspective over yours. :-) >
>
> QM is an inchoate discipline as this time, I refer you again to
> Thorne's quote. Again, you are using uncertainties in any theory you come
> across as proof of your idiolectic theory. That's not only not good
enough,
> it's unethical, involving as it does deliberate misinterpretation of
theory.
>
> <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'. >
> >
> Rubbish.
>
Wait, wait, Vincent. Let us not be hasty in our entirely valid irritation.
Let us give Chris his point:
Surely, electron microscopy is a Socratic shadow in the cave. Are electrons
*really* particles, clouds or shells? Fuck if I know! These are models,
quite likely metaphoric.
Never the less, when I watch the President on TV, afterwards I do speak of
the President and what the President does. I do not speak only of the TV
set!
And, likewise, however mysterious the Ontology of the microverse, never the
less, I will speak of it. Just as the prisoners of the Socratic cave
apprehending only the flickering spectral fire light shadows of the real
world, none the less may gossip about of their mysterious jailers who cast
every
vague and looming silhouette.
Even if my brain is no better or worse a tool then the oscilloscopic shadow
show,
never the less, it remains a viable hypothesis that an outside word exists
and influences my perceptions, no less than my own nature does. Chris
Lofting, after all, offers no better hypothesis.
All of his natterings about recursion, indeed, require an objective reality
in partnership with the perceiver, do they not? Indeed, the brain, by way of
natural selection, has come to reflect the real world.
And if NeuroScience delving into NeuroStructure can illuminate
Epistemological Methodology and Logic in real practice, so much the better.
Presentationalism is the position that, for example:
Never mind if electrons are shells or particles. Let's just work with what
is presented to us...
But the limits of Presentationalism are highlighted every time the effort to
pierce the Phenomena into Ontology proves creative, and yields new insights
that surrender to agnosis never can.
Alas, in a nut shell, Chris Lofting is paralyzed by uncertainty. And his
rejection of Ontology may yet kill the very modeling process he worships.
Like Orobus, the world snake, Chris Lofting's eyes are truly is blinderred
by his buttocks! Because there is nothing so worthy of study, to his lights,
than the depths of his own winding tracts.
>
> <It is possible that 'electrons', 'photons', 'neutrons' are in fact
> the many
> > expressions of the SAME thing,>
> >
> Exactly, my point. You think all these things are intepretations existing
> only within our minds. This is a basic error,w hich you fail to see. I
bet
> you don't make that error when you cross the road do you? Or do you walk
> out into traffic regarding the fast moving large vehicles as merely
> expressions?
>
>
> <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.>
> >
> There you go again talking about behind.. see Aaron's previous post.
>
> <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.>
> >
> Ignore what CIT's Feynman professor of theoretical physics says if
> you like, but don't try and pretend that he confirms your tragedy of a
> theory. Quite clearly you don't understand the quote, to use your phrase,
> "don't worry".
>
>
> <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 :-)>
> >
> And you have to audacity to accuse others of being up their own
> arse, with your three levels of behind.
>
> <Think deeper Vincent, so far you are still being 'lite'. :-)>
>
> I am already aware of the major basic flaws that any person of any
> intellect whatsoever (that excludes you, of course) would see if they had
> the misfortune to come across your ideas. I have asked you about a
million
> times for a single piece of original evidence to support your theory, and
> all you do is throw that back through more reiteration of your ideas. It
is
> you who are lite- on every count of what makes a theory plausible.
>
> Vincent
>
===============================================================
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 - 21:00:13 GMT