Re: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...

From: Aaron Agassi (agassi@erols.com)
Date: Wed Jan 24 2001 - 11:20:33 GMT

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on..."

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA25023 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:26:24 GMT
    Message-ID: <005f01c085f7$ab04aac0$5eaefea9@cable.rcn.com>
    From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745BFE@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    Subject: Re: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
    Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 06:20:33 -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: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 5:51 AM
    Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...

    > <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.>
    > >
    > Metaphoric perhaps, but not without predictive or explanatory power.

    Quite.

    As I said, let's give Chris Lofting his point, his premise, but yet deny him
    his Post Modern conclusions.

    > QM regards electrons as quanta that have a particle function and a wave
    > function.
    >
    > Chandresakar (I think I've spelt that correctly), utilised QM,
    > particularly the idea of electron degeneracy, in explaining (to an
    > unreceptive audience at the time) the nature of white dwarf stars, his
    > approach laying the groundwork for the existence of black holes, something
    > Einstein's theories predicted but which he himself rejected. There's a
    > major section on this in Thorne's book that I quoted a couple of posts
    back.
    >
    > Of course, current thinking is that super massive black holes exist
    > in the middle of galaxies, but whether the term 'electron' is entirely
    > metaphoric or not, doesn't matter as it is useful in helping us to achieve
    a
    > degree of predicitive and explanatory power in regard to the universe.

    But Chris lofting dismisses explanation and description as a manifestation
    of self reinforcing bias.

    How, then, if at all, does he explain successful prediction? After all, he
    dismisses truth defined as correspondence to reality, however metaphorical;
    and, instead, defines truth as an event in the brain, which seems to be
    Methodological.But that does not differentiate truth from unsuspected error.
    And he categorizes Science as just another arbitrary cultural activity.

    >
    > Otherwise I wouldn't disagree with your other comments (nice turn of
    > phrase too:-)).

    Honestly, verbal ability must be only another application of all those
    Logical NeuroStructural patterns of recursion, where of Chris Lofting is so
    enamored. That being the case, why can't he learn how to write??

    I submit that it is because Chris Lofting denies the true nature of those
    very NeuroStructural patterns of recursion, where of he is enamored. I
    submit that the NeuroStructural patterns of recursion as manifest in
    linguistic grammar are Dialectic, conjectural, and essentially oriented by
    Natural Selection and cultural Progress towards investigation and
    description of reality.

    The brain even investigating and describing itself, is still only
    investigating reality, in which the brain is substantial, subject to
    physical laws, and apprehended only by observation, much as anything else.

    Muddled logic and tortured prose are all that can accrue from Chris
    Lofting's rejection of Ontology (the question of objective reality).

    The brain is more than the sum of it's recursion. Thanks to sensory input,
    the brain is an engine of conjecture. Excepting, of course, the brain of
    Chris Lofting, which _is_ entirely recursive!

    >
    > 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 : Wed Jan 24 2001 - 11:28:11 GMT