From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>, <Critical-Cafe@mjmail.eeng.dcu.ie>
Subject: Re: Memetic/Ontological correspondence?
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 20:45:11 +1000
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 before on BOTH of these lists,
these patterns are part of the METHOD of analysis and do not necessarily
reflect 'out there'; 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).
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