From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
To: <Critical-Cafe@mjmail.eeng.dcu.ie>, <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: CRITICAL-CAFE: Method needs Methodological context
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 02:50:52 -0400
In-Reply-To: <005601beb16f$95101d20$a3a86ccb@ddiamond>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-critical-cafe@mjmail.eeng.dcu.ie
> [mailto:owner-critical-cafe@mjmail.eeng.dcu.ie]On Behalf Of chris
> lofting
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 1:26 AM
> To: Critical-Cafe@mjmail.eeng.dcu.ie; memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: CRITICAL-CAFE: Method needs Methodological context
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Agassi <agassi@erols.com>
> To: Critical-Cafe@mjmail.eeng.dcu.ie <Critical-Cafe@mjmail.eeng.dcu.ie>;
> memetics@mmu.ac.uk <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> Date: Tuesday, 6 July 1999 5:17
> Subject: CRITICAL-CAFE: Method needs Methodological context
>
>
> <snip>
> >How, then, if at all, does pattern projection out of the Method,
> tending to
> >reflect itself, constetute a mistake? First of all, if the Method is a
> >mistake, for some other reason. But not even then, strictly speaking. In
> >fact, it would be correct procedure from a mistaken premise. "Garbage in,
> >garbage out".
>
> which leads to illusions which you then go on to live by. To be unaware of
> methodology-derived patterns and so to take results literally rather than
> realising their metaphor reflects a degree of intellectual corruption; or
> more so the 'mind of children' who do not want to grow up and face the
> facts.
>
> >Another implicit reason why pattern projection out of the
> >Method, tending to reflect itself, might be a mistake, would be if it is
> >arbitrary. An arbitrary notion, reinforcing itself, would be likewise,
> >arbitrary. The results could only be correct by sheer lucky accident! But
> if
> >the premise is sound, then extrapolation from them might be productive.
> >
> >The question remains, is reality testing really possible?
> >Because, reality
> >testing remains the crux of the matter. If all perception is reduced to
> >projection, some argue that the cause is lost. But if it is allowed that
> >cognition is in any way shaped by existence in reality, then there may
> >still
> >be hope.
> >
>
An answer is required first, then an explanation. You are repeating
explanation that I have only just summarized, and not answering:
> Reality testing is always done within a context set by our
> neurology and in
> particular that neurology's method of information processing. To
> understand
> 'out there' free of 'us' you MUST take into consideration
> patterns that are
> seen as if 'out there' that are in fact created by 'in here'.
No, I do not need to take any of that into consideration. Because, I have
already done better than that. I have posed a question.
>
> No physicists etc
None? Anybody want to comment?
>do this since they are ignorant of
> neurological/psychological functioning
Wait a minute. The problem, as I understand you, is with some circular
tendancy of Statistics. If there is such a proble, then the questions of the
historical origins of the problem, including possible Neurological origin
would be a separate and further question. If you go straight to Neurology,
then you are only raising the same age old problems of a) human fallibility,
generally, and b) bias. and this I have already addressed, and still await
answer.
>to a degree where one of the main
> tools, mathematics, is believed to come from its own 'universe'
I don't know what 'universe' -in quotes- means. The real Universe is the
subject of Ontology. Kindly define your terms.
> rather than
> be a manifestion of neurological development processes.
Mathematics is, indeed, generally recognized as a discrete field of inquiry.
So, is mathematics merely a human cultural artifact? Or does Ontology come
into it? The very fact that Mathematics has improved, shows that the field
of Mathematics has changed, as has humanity ourselves. But, objectively, it
is highly probable that two and two always equal four. No matter what
doublthink O'brian beat into poor Winston Smith's shattered mind. This is an
apparent paradox, but easily resolved, by resorting to Hume:
The red object has primary and secondary qualities, according to Hume. The
property of the red object, that it tends to reflect the red wave lengths of
light, are among it's primary qualities. But the red that we perceive, is
among it's secondary qualities. The object's primary attributes, together
with the qualities of the observer, such as color optics, are together
contributing causes of it's secondary qualities. The redness of the object
is real, and distinct from the redness we perceive. But the redness we
perceive is no more in the red object, than a stomach ache is in the piece
of rotten meat one has eaten; contrary to how the Essentialism of Aristotle
would have it. The redness of perception, like the stomach ache from the
rotten meat, comes in response. The sight of the redness, or the stomach
ache, are part of how we perceive the object and the food, respectively.
And so would it be with Mathematics. In fact there are three distinct
domains:
There is reality, there is logical internal consistency, and there is our
own poor understanding. To which Neurology and culture must pertain. Do you
really thing that Math and Algebra are entirely arbitrary? This would be too
easily refutable. The Mathematics we do, is our fallible perception of the
mathematics as it is. The Popperian answer, then, remains the same. To
proceed without firm foundation, conjecturally, only constraining conjecture
by return to reality testing, in so far as this is possible. Or, I ask
again, do you regard reality testing as hopeless, due to human fallibility
and bias? Because, as I have said, and yet again, I have already answered.
>
> >In the case of statistical analysis of interference patterns in light,
> those
> >experiments where never intended to prove that light is a wave.
> That light
> >is a wave is the premise experimentally supported before hand,
> "justified",
> >if you will, by previous experiments and observations.
>
> ..but the set-up of the experiments creates the data and so you need to be
> aware of potential interpretation problems.
Again, is it the set up of experimentation that causes Red Shift and Blue
Shift? I don't think so. Is that, then, not sufficient to proceed,
conjecturally, from the assumption of the wave nature of light? Stop
pretending you don't notice this fly in your Nihilistic ointment!
>
> We don't even really
> >believe that light is a wave, because how can light be both wave and
> >particle at the same time?
>
> IT isnt, it is the interpretation, the pre-emption put into the experiment
> that then creates this when we compare one experiment with another
> forgetting the context. If experiment A detects particles and experiment B
> detects waves that does NOT mean that the thing being analysed is
> 'both'. It
> is CONTEXT that determines the result, as it does in genetics etc all
> experiments are examples of EXPRESSION and you MUST include contextual
> distinctions prior to making any assertions about equality.
I have already answered this, You are not making counter argument. You are
merely repeating yourself, as if I had added nothing.
>
> In wave/particle duality the context is (a) when we go for particulars we
> see particles and (b) when we go for generals we see waves. There is a
> strong contextual difference that leads to the conclusion that the METHOD
> determines what we see.
I have already put this presumption of your into doubt. But I still await an
answer to my points.
>Particles are 'primary' and waves are secondary in
> that they reflect dynamic relational characteristics.
Kindly define your terms, explicitly. I don't know what 'primary' in your
quotes, or 'secondary' -quotes added by me- mean, except in Hume's usage, as
I have already detailed.
>
> In the context of genes or memes they are primary
Again, what the Hell are you talking about? Kindly define your terms,
specifically and explicitly. I will not be bothered with Induction for
understanding to "arise". I'm working too hard as it is.
>and waves come into it
> when we get into expression but that is not seen as a property of
> our method
> of analysis and so a potential for confusion...
Any intended linguistic meaning in that last is lost to me. You say I just
don't understand. You are correct in that surmise. But I have indicated my
linguistic and logical problems, to which you show depraved indifference.
>
>
>
>
===============================================================
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