Re: Levels

Chris Lees (
Tue, 06 Jul 1999 12:29:49 +0100

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 12:29:49 +0100
From: Chris Lees <>
Subject: Re: Levels

Hey, Chris and Aaron, I'm not the list moderator ( who'd want the job on
THIS list, with so much blood and guts in the archives ) and I don't want
to get caught in the middle...

> I think the 'problem' as far as I am concerned is trying to 'view' models of
> reality other than that which we currently have and which I suggest are
> 'distorted' by projecting method properties onto 'out there' and seeing
> these as if 'out there'.

Yes, I think that's interesting, and just because your approach is unfamiliar,
unconventional, doesn't mean it's garbage. I'm open minded. At very least,
you made me think along some new pathways, and I enjoy that.But you may
be wrong also....but it's a brave try, which I respect.

> Aaron has failed to respond to the particular interference pattern email I
> sent other than to say he cannot understand it. However there are many who
> find no problem with it other than what it implies (which to some is great,
> to some is stressful, and to others is ridiculous since it can cause one to
> reconsider too much of what has been done so far in our map-making)

Yes, I understand why you get those responses. But if the wave patterns are
there ( out there ) on the wall....then there they are. How can they be a
statistical artifact, or some kind of illusion due to our inner neurology ?
I don't understand. And if that makes a hole in your case, doesn't the whole
'dichotomous system' you've proposed look a bit shakey ?

> There are other articles at my website that cover this but he is not
> prepared to shift his ground and press the button over the hyperlink... such
> an easy thing to do! :-)

I guess he's a stubborn man, prone to pride, vanity, and other failings that
often accompany such a ferocious intellectual capacity.... ;->

> There is much in my work (which is on going) that requires us to re-think
> many things and this includes development of complementary models (object
> bias and relationships bias.. Aaron has raised this issue and it is work
> that needs to be done at the particular level, for example, what ideas do we
> get about gravity etc by applying the dual model?)

Yeh, well the wider scientific community may take a bit of convincing...
IF you're onto something, you'll probably have to wait for this current
generation to die first, a la Kuhn...

> If we look carefully at the data, a levels model does introduce some
> concepts that are worth working on. By this I mean that due to the structure
> of our neurology that IS hierarchic and levels oriented (1 layer in the
> reptilian brain, 3 in the limbic system, 4 in cingulate cortex and 6 in the
> neocortex) any mapping ACROSS levels will work like a recursive dichotomy in
> that data emerges from the 'middle', 'inbetween' the levels (layers) we
> pickup interference.

Yes, I follow.

> In the quantum mechanics concepts I am pointing out that the detection of
> particles at the slits is one level of analysis -- very precise -- but when
> we move back and try to detect things implicitly (through the analysis of
> patterns on a photographic plate) we have changed levels, our answer is no
> longer 'precise' (statistical analysis starts with a PAIR being treated as
> if 'one') but we try to see it as such and so span levels and 'see' patterns
> that come from the method of analysis. In this concept, to understand things
> you cannot include data from out of your level for to do so leads to
> 'confusions', all you can do is shift levels, as we have done with TOE in
> that adding a dimension (another dichotomy) suddenly all is made 'clear'.

I'm not convinced. I favour Aaron on that. But perhaps if you'd both explain
as if to a simpleton like me, in less frenzied tones, it might become a little
clearer ? I think that was the most interesting part so far. The 'dark patches'
when the waves recombine ( forgive me if I don't use the correct terms) is
fascinating. I just cannot grasp how that can be fitted in to your scheme, Chris.
If I remember rightly, Aaron insists it cannot. How do you answer him on that
particular question ?

> My website deals with the use of dichotomisations to generate 'meaning' and
> there is a neurologically-based template that we use to generate this
> meaning. If we have adapted to our environment by internalising information
> processing characteristics then this template reflects all we can know and
> it is used to create instruments that emulate dichotomous processes. This
> creates 'resonance' where 'in here' resonates with 'out there'. However this
> also allows us to preempt things, to IMPOSE template properties onto
> experiment results unconsciously and this can lead us into 'strange' worlds
> that might be fun but are also illusions and the deeper we go maintaining
> the fantasy the more strange things can become.

Yes, it's an interesting and original overview...but can it survive a robust critique ?

> I am glad to see that my website 'warmed' you a bit as it suggests that at
> least some people can understand it :-)

Well, I don't claim to understand it, in the way that you do. I nearly dismissed
it out of hand, the first time around, but then I began to have an inkling into
what you are getting at. The pattern seems to fit, in quite unlikely places, which
I find quite a surprise. But maybe it's a bit like Ley Lines. Just because a lot of
interesting sites can sit on a straight line on the map, it doesn't follow that
Ley Lines exist in reality. They are a natural consequence of a lot of random dots,
and joining dots with lines, which create an illusion which convinces the naive
spectator. Maybe your pattern is that kind of illusion ?

> I am endevouring to restructure things but this takes time and my living has
> little to do with my 'homework'...

Sure. Thanks for the letter.


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)