Re: Memetic/Ontological correspondence?

Chris Lofting (
Sat, 3 Jul 1999 20:57:21 +1000

From: "Chris Lofting" <>
To: <>, <>
Subject: Re: Memetic/Ontological correspondence?
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 20:57:21 +1000

-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Agassi <>
To: <>; <>
Date: Saturday, 3 July 1999 4:57
Subject: RE: Memetic/Ontological correspondence?

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: []On Behalf
>> Of Chris Lofting
>> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 1999 12:07 AM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Memetic/Ontological correspondence?
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Aaron Agassi <>
>> To: <>;
>> <>
>> Date: Saturday, 3 July 1999 3:14
>> Subject: RE: Memetic/Ontological correspondence?
>> <snip>
>> >>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
>> an
>> >artifact of Methodology.
>> >
>> see previous post.
>Which I have answered.
>>I Note in that post that the implied wave interference
>> pattern gets stronger as you do more trials but never changes. If you
>> at the graph there are 19 peaks out of a total of 27 states where eight
>> states are seen as 'troughs' but in fact contain only one pattern.
>No, if you conduct the experiment, and look on the laboratory wall, you
>see, quite clearly, the interference patterns projected, and not by out own
>minds, either.

the pattern comes from the entanglement. The experiment emulates the
thinking processes. you dont seem to be able to understand that...

>> There is no paradox; you do not 'see' waves/particles at the same
>> time, the
>> manner of detection, YOUR INTENT, determines what you see. Go
>> particular and
>> you see particles, Go general (stats) and you see waves.
>So, it is MY INTENT, by magic, that casts wave form shadows when I split
>polarized light source, and MY INTENT that magically brings about Critical
>Mass, when two chunks of radio isotope are moved closer together?!!!!!!

You moved them. Your intent. There is no magic here but more an entanglement
of you with 'out there'. You seem to strongly favour 'independence' as if
you are seperate. You are not.

All data is in the form of object/relationships but it is your intent that
decides what is an object and what is a relationship.

>can we speculate that some intervening causality mediates between intention
>and result? And what about scientists who get different results from the
>ones they sought? How do you explain that? At least you might be better off
>by saying that the question one asks might frame the answer, to some
>But is that anything new?

I have repeatedly stated that how you analyse will determine the structure
of what you see. That is what happens with dichotomous analysis and the
wave/particle duality experiments.

All 'meaning' is encapsulated in the method use to derive it. Therefore
analyse the method and you find all meanings. All dichotomy based
disciplines are metaphors created from the method.

>If I make the completely unwarranted assumption that you are not actually
>stark raving mad, perhaps I should not take you literally, and understand
>you to only mean that our interpretation is colored by bias, either
>accumulated from experience, or even, perhaps, mapped onto our wetware,
>genetically. That our poor brains cannot fathom a consistent pattern
>all the results, leaving us with the paradoxical set of two explanations,
>each only consistent for one set of experiments. But that is nothing new.
>The real question is, so, what now? Continue the inquiry, conjecturally, as
>Karl Popper exhorts? Or else, what course of action would you recommend,

Re-analysis of the basics of each discipline using the method 'template' to
fill in the dots. Due to the shared basic format you can even use other
disciplines to 'shine light' on each other.

Re-analysis of concepts such as wave/particle duality and the experimental
formats ensuring that they are NOT emulations of dichotomous thinking; we
need to ensure that we do not project properties of the method onto what we
are investigating -- if we can :-)

Recognition that all of these discipline are metaphor/symbolisms for
object/relationships rather than sourced in some 'magical' universe; e.g.
the Platonic universe of mathematics etc

>>The latter comes
>> about since the fundamental unit of a statistical analysis is a PAIR and
>> this builds-in indeterminacy at the root in that if you try to
>> which elements of the PAIR comes 'first' (or goes 'left' or
>> 'right) you get
>> a 50/50 chance and this introduces dichotomisations where indeterminence
>> gives you wave patterns.
>> When you set-up experiments to emulate this you get the patterns.
>> Note that
>> in the photographic plates so the wave patterns build up over
>> time; you see
>> the dots from the electrons/photons and then emerges the wave
>> pattern which
>> implies particles are still there but their distribution is dictated by
>> patterns in the method and that method is dichotomy based with
>> indeterminance/equivalence 'built-in'.
>No, if waves build up from particle impact points, then this suggests that
>particles are guided in some wave like field pattern.

The waves reflect context, dependencies, that which is behind things. right
thread stuff. One thing of note is that the patterns are have no explicit
chronology, if you map the steps it would appear 'random'. The 'picture'
represents history and that is context and 'in here' that is processed in a
wave format; harmonics of the whole. This 'whole' is the sum of the two

Slit A / Slit B (aka NOT slit A)

Accumulation of data from these slits forces the emergence of the 'middle'
of the dichotomy and it is there that probabilites emerge, wave patterns
shown in my post. On the images you see circles, draw a line from
circumferance through the center and you get the wave pattern graph.

move the photographic plate closer to the slits and you get a 'center'
build-up. Move it away and the interference pattern become a uniform
distribution meaning (Airy pattern is best to see this) that the
relationship of plate to source is also a dichotomy. (polariser experiments
reflect this in that it is at the 45 degree position (middle of the 0-90
dichotomy) that things get 'interesting')

(Who advanced that?)
>Are you saying that this result is predicable from, what? The arrangement
>the particle sources? Random emission, statistically? What in the Method
>makes waves?

The way the data is created (dichotomously). I have sent you the diagram.
Look at it. The patterns emerge from the structure of the experiment and the
experiment is an emulation of dichotomous processes.

And if so, can some predictable result of specific changes in
>the experiment prove this? And, frankly can't any such thing be better
>explicated without reference to Memetics?

? I dont refer directly to memetics... The basis is our neurology. The best
we can do is 'suggest' that it emulates 'out there' in some way but then
perhaps all of our models of 'out there' are dictated by the neurology; the
'cooperation' is strong such that you are at the entanglement end of things
where it is hard to differentiate 'who came first'.


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)