From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: assertions as to objective reality
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 13:51:47 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-critical-cafe@mjmail.eeng.dcu.ie
> [mailto:owner-critical-cafe@mjmail.eeng.dcu.ie]On Behalf Of Chris
> Lofting
> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 1999 7:06 AM
> To: Critical-Cafe@mjmail.eeng.dcu.ie
> Subject: Re: CRITICAL-CAFE: assertions as to objective reality
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Agassi <agassi@erols.com>
> To: Critical-Cafe@mjmail.eeng.dcu.ie <Critical-Cafe@mjmail.eeng.dcu.ie>
> Date: Saturday, 3 July 1999 5:11
> Subject: RE: CRITICAL-CAFE: assertions as to objective reality
>
>
> <snip>
> The wave/particle
> >> duality is not a
> >> 'problem' once you recognise how we process data and how we
> emulate these
> >> processes in our instruments and experiments.
> >Fine. Give us the answer. Collect your Nobel Prize!
> >
>
> I am not interested nore qualified, I am one of the unwashed :-) All I am
> doing is demonstrating the source of 'meaning' and how people can
> put value
> into things that Science etc determine are 'valueless'; Science does not
> understand the source of meaning, my work demonstrates it and so
> how 'value'
> is generated regardless of 'out there'; as long as it is structured along
> object/relationship patterns anything can be made to feel 'real' and of
> 'value'.
This is nothing new. Can be, does not mean always. And there is always hope
that Methodological errors can be discovered and the situation improved.
But is your work Scientific? Can it be stated as a set of propositions? And
is there a hypothetical refutation which you would be compelled to accept?
>
> My particular area has been in analysis of the use of dichotomies
> recursively
What is "use of dichotomies recursively"? How are dichotomies "used", to
begin with? Don't you mean that dichotomies are inferred?
>and the resulting underlying feelings
Huh? What results from what else? What feelings? Do you love Deuterium but
hate Uranium? What are you talking about?
>associated such
> that these
> serve as the source for our making analogies across apparently different
> disciplines.
You've already lost me.
>
> The lexicons for each discipline serve to 'hide' the connections;
> the words
> manifest 'free will' and they all point to the emotion-based patterns that
> are determined.
>
> Very simple stuff :-) once you get the hang of it...
>
> 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