From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Dawkins' Mutation Test for Replicators
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 02:10:21 +1000
-----Original Message-----
From: Gatherer, D. (Derek) <D.Gatherer@organon.nhe.akzonobel.nl>
To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk' <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Date: Monday, 30 August 1999 9:35
Subject: RE: Dawkins' Mutation Test for Replicators
>Chris:
>My assertion is that the results of the
>experiments comes from the recursive dichotomisations used in the
>creation/analysis of the data;
>
>Derek:
>No, again, the results come from interpreting the experiments in the light
>of the research tradition in which they are grounded.
>
The 'research tradition' is the problem in that this tradition liberally
uses dichotomisations without consideration of the properties that come with
the method and the consequence being the confusion of properties of the
method with properties of the things under analysis.
The meanings associated with any interpretation are part of the method of
interpretation; meaning is not independent of method.
If the method makes the distinctions of wholes from aspects so with these
abstract terms are patterns of emotion that we 'feel' and give us meaning.
The application of any dichotomy recursively is used to 'refine' meaning, we
move from the base level dichotomy of black/white to more refined levels of
analysis where we start to see shades of grey, which manifest *relational*
properties of mixing black/white.
When you get to about six levels of analysis, patterns of meaning emerge
that we can link with feelings of dependencies, what was originally seen as
'black/white' and 'opposites' in form starts to be seen as greys and
'cooperative' in form. Not only that, but in some circumstances, where we
categorise indeterminate states or synonymous states, frequency
distributions emerge that imply wave interference at work! it does not
matter what the elements of the dichotomy are, you will see these sorts of
patterns since these patterns are properties of the METHOD.
This is reinforced through the use of statistics. In the double slit
experiment in quantum mechanics we 'see' particles where we put detectors at
both slits; a particle will go through one or the other slit and be
detected. The emphasis here is on precision, on a specific point in space --
when we 'look' we see particles.
If we then put a photographic plate behind the slits and use that as our
detector things change -- we see 'dots' that reflect the particles arriving
at the plate but *over time* these dots form wave patterns implying wave
interference at work. Not necessarily so since the double slit creates a
dichotomy (left/right) and the hits on the plate reflect recursive
dichotomisation. this process ensures the emergence of these sorts of
patterns and so the interference patterns reflect methodological influences
and not necessarily the existence of 'wave/particle' duality 'out there'.
It should be note that in any statistical analysis, the basic unit of
measurement is a *pair*, you cannot have a statistical analysis based on one
unit. This distinction forces the emergence of dichotomy-based patterns such
as the normal distribution curve and any indeterminacy regarding the *pair*,
as in 'which one comes 'first'', will lead to the implied wave interference
pattern emerging; the METHOD does this alone.
is this 'readable' or am I still being too 'muddy'?
best,
Chris.
===============================================================
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