From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>, <Critical-Cafe@mjmail.eeng.dcu.ie>
Subject: RE: Memetic/Ontological correspondence?
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 13:09:10 -0400
In-Reply-To: <00b401bec478$e242c9a0$9b166ccb@ddiamond>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Chris Lofting
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 6:45 AM
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk; Critical-Cafe@mjmail.eeng.dcu.ie
> Subject: Re: Memetic/Ontological correspondence?
>
>
> Aaron, since you seem to be in 'intense mode' I will use this post of
> yours to deal with all previous posts sent in the last X hours or so!....
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Agassi <agassi@erols.com>
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>;
> Critical-Cafe@mjmail.eeng.dcu.ie <Critical-Cafe@mjmail.eeng.dcu.ie>
> Date: Friday, 2 July 1999 9:34
> Subject: Memetic/Ontological correspondence?
>
>
> >It appears that the logical capacity of the human brain evolved for
> >survival, thus perhaps coming into some sort correspondence with
> objective
> >reality. But the new territory of Quantum Mechanics is often confusing to
> >our ingrained Euclidean Logic.
> >
>
> Sort of. It is the lack of understanding of how we process data that is
> causing the problems. Logic, in the form of predicate and propositional
> calculus, is very left-brained in that it has an object approach and
> includes in this the concept of the excluded middle - A + ~A = 0
>
> Neurological findings demonstrate that the left brain is more 'object'
> biased (a probable abstraction of our brains use of waypoint mapping as we
> see in the operations of the hippocampus and so "A to B to Z to C...".)
>
> With object oriented bias so we can 'see' the source of the concept of the
> excluded middle in that at the 'purest' level there is no
> 'inbetween', 'all'
> is objects. (the 'jumps' that occur as a result of the object emphasis are
> seen in both auditory and visual information processing implying
> they are an
> abstraction from the text/context dichotomies that these systems
> use -- e.g.
> fovea/parafovea, we 'jump' from object to object when in detail mode of
> analysis (fovea). This emphasises a more 'digital' approach when
> compares to
> the analogue approach
> of the parafovea (context - background - sensitive; general pattern
> detection).
>
> The object bias emphasises precision, coming to the 'point' and so making
> things 'clear' and if we look at the development of the human brain, from
> Reptilian to Neocortex, there is the strong suggestion that this precision
> comes from waypoint mapping; logic has developed from the
> primitive emotion
> linked to waypoint mapping that is expressed by the EITHER/OR dichotomy of
> correct/incorrect. (Hemisphere research seems to have linked this syntax-
> bias emotion, the feeling of 'correct', to the left hemisphere)
>
> We can easily see the origins of 'numbers', in particular whole
> and rational
> numbers, from the object-biased characteristics of our brain-mind.
>
> If we look at quantum mechanics we find that, using the double slit
> experiments as examples, zooming-in to each slit we can detect
> which path an
> electron/photon takes. This is EITHER/OR mapping, very precise. The
> 'problems' come when we take a step backwards and in doing so move from
> precision to approximations where we take a statistical approach using a
> photographic plate to store data. In this sense we move from the
> particular
> to the general.
>
>
> This approach leads to the 'discovery' of apparent wave interference
> patterns. However, as I have demonstrated
Have you? You attempted to describe the process.
>before on BOTH of these lists,
> these patterns are part of the METHOD of analysis
That is highly debatable! As we agree, patern recognition begins with
pattern congectural genneration. Then there must be a check for Ontological
coorespondance. The need for this test does not, in and of itself, rule out
all correspondance with reality! Even created meaning can actually be
literally true, though not always.
>and do not necessarily
> reflect 'out there';
Indeed, only possibly. But doubt is nothing new, nor does it constetute
refutation. You must sill demonstrate that wave patterns are no more than an
artifact of Methodology.
>these experiments emulate dichotomous thinking (e.g.
> left/right determinations taken over a number of trials, the
> statistics act
> to 'sum' the dichotomies and as such apply the original dichotomy
> recursively).
Waves are revealed, plain as day, projected upon the laboratory wall, by
visible interference patterns with light, much as with sound. Hello? That
one, at least, is not a statistical exercise. And that already remains
sufficient for the wave part of the wave/particle duality paradox, which
still demands explanation.
>
> We see these 'waves' in ANY statistical analysis of dichotomies (see my
> article on wave patterns in the stock markets
>
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/patterns.html )
>
>
> The use of probabilites in logic, i.e. in fuzzy logic, comes from the
> realisation that the single context, rigid EITHER/OR processes are too
> 'bulky', too inflexible when used to deal with reality, we need to use
> multi-variable forms and this is where the excluded middle is found to be
> rich in that it is the source of all that could be. This said, we
> also need
> to realise that there are patterns in this area that come from
> the method of
> analysis and so we need to be more discerning about how we go about making
> our maps.
>
> >The question, then:
> >Might there be regions and pathways of the brain better suited
> to relate to
> >such Chimera as Quantum Mechanics, than left brained either or pathways?
> >Specifically, can human ambivalence find correspondence to Quantum
> >Mechanics? I doubt it. Because, Heisenberg Uncertainty is probabilistic,
> >while human ambivalence is agenda driven.
> >
> >
>
> The perception of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP)
> comes from the
> method of analysis; it is part of dichotomous processing where
> you find that
> there is also a partner in what we could call the Equivalence Principle
> where our brain-minds collapse concepts like A + B = C and B + A = C into
> the same 'space', using only one of the equations to represent
> both modes of
> expression.
>
> In this sense, indeterminance occupies the same 'space' as
> equivalence; the
> difference is qualitative where in indeterminance we cannot tell
> A + B from
> B + A and in equivalence we can but do not see them as different.
>
> This 'same space' occupation can be captured by using the concept of a
> superposition, making this an example of BOTH/AND-ness.
>
> In dichotomous analysis over time (as we find in the double slit etc) the
> indeterminance/equivalance patterns emerge as frequency distributions
> suggesting wave interference and if you create experiments that
> emulate this
> dichotomy-biased process they will show 'waves'.
>
> HUP comes about when you zoom-in to be so precise that you exclude other
> elements in the context and at the same time try to exclude their
> dependencies with what you are 'looking' at. This forms 1:many dichotomy
> which when applied recursively with a continued emphasis on 'the
> one' forces
> the absolute negation of 'the many'.
>
> In the 'original' HUP this is reduced to seemingly 1:1 dichotomy of
> position:momentum. Whichever you make 'the one' forces the other to be
> negative and so indeterminate. In a simple sense, you cannot look at more
> than one thing at a time when you demand 'precision', EITHER you look at
> position OR you look at momentum and the closer you get to one the further
> you get from the other. The only way to look at both is to change
> levels and
> entangle both into a superposition and then view the resulting
> virtual wave
> as if 'the one'.
>
> The whole concept of SpaceTime is a manifestation of this sort of analysis
> where the elements of a dichotomy (Space:Time) are seen as inseperable and
> so combined at a 'new' level of analysis. Recursive application of ANY
> dichotomy leads to an emerging continuum and so you get the
> PositionMomentum
> continuum etc etc (in fact this is more an interdigitation of the original
> dichotomy, a weaving of the two threads into patterns of 'meaning')
>
> This continuum emphasises dependencies that emerge from attempts to stress
> independence. This comes from the method of analysis which our instruments
> also emulate. With this in mind it follows that the repeated
> application of
> 'correct'/'incorrect' dichotomy will lead to this interdigitation and an
> emerging continuum of possible states -- we enter the world of
> probabilities, fuzzy logic and wave equations and this is all
> sourced in the
> method of analysis, it is all 'in here'.
>
> By understanding this, and by analysis of the dichotomy method, we map out
> all possible 'states' that could be for ANY discipline based on using
> dichotomies (and I stress that the fundamental brain-mind dichotomy is
> 1:many not 1:1. This can lead to logscale type maps etc etc)
>
> In Aaron's comments so far there is an emphasise on 'seperation' of 'in
> here' from 'out there', humans have an agenda and out there does not. This
> is false in that 'out there' has an agenda and it is called
> evolution and it
> is the structuring of the fundamental particles into
> object(fermion)/relationships(bosons) dichotomy applied recursively that
> makes us what we are; we are not independent of 'out there' we are part of
> it and our success in survival is because we emulate it all 'in here' by
> using dichotomies. (although this way of thinking forces the
> conclusion...!)
>
> This internalisation of the characteristics of 'out there' allows us to
> create our own universes 'in here' and at times these can conflict with
> 'reality' and adjustments are required no matter how painful.
>
> By understanding the structuring and resulting patterns of dichotomous
> analysis we understand that all disciplines are metaphors for describing
> object/relationships. This does NOT mean that we throw away all Inquiry as
> Aaron has suggested:
>
> "We are left, then, with a choice: We can continue, conjecturally, in the
> hopes of ever finding an explanation. Or we can follow Chris Lofting's
> example and just give up, invalidating the
> entire endeavor of Rational Inquiry and Reality Testing."
>
> What it does mean is a paradigm shift in how we view things and that can
> serve to enhance things. Furthermore, all of the metaphors we have created
> do help to particularise the general and the development path along
> complexity principles does allow for emergences that are generally
> predictable but whose particular expression would be 'novel' due to the
> context influence -- like phenotypes and genotypes.. but this too is a
> dichotomy...
>
>
> best,
>
> Chris.
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 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