RE: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge ?
Hi JS,
you wrote:
>
> JS> A theory of chemistry, for example, is tested by chemical
> > experiments, whose results are evaluated by chemists. No one
> > would claim that a neurophysiologist would have any special
> > insights that would be relevant to the evaluation.
>
> Nobody disputes your first sentence: "the tools and methods
> used in chemistry are DETERMINED by the general method used
> by the brain in processing information."
>
> I will grant that neural science might lead us to design better
> tools that take into account human abilities and limitations.
> But that does not affect the original claim that the truth or
> falsity of a theory in chemistry is determined by *chemistry*,
> not by neural science.
>
your missing the point, shown in this statement:
> Then you wrote another note talking about chemical bonds and
> metaphors with human bonds.
No. the bonds identified have a generic structure FREE of their specialist
labels. The mapping of blending, bonding, bounding, and binding to chemistry
is repeated in their mapping to human relationships. The METHOD we use to
interpret reality, the recursion of differentiate/integrate will elicit the
blending, bonding, bounding, and binding qualities in ALL specialist
perspectives since they are core properties of differentiating/integrating,
not unique to 'chemistry' nor 'social relationships' nore 'Mathematics' nore
'Quantum Mechanics'.
The LABELS of chemistry re ionic, hydrogen etc point to invarient qualities
hard-coded into our sense of meaning. Different labels in, for example,
mathematics point to the SAME qualities, as do different labels in social
dynamics. Our PERCEPTIONS are filtered by our senses and neurology as they
have adapted to the universe. In that adaptation we have 'internalised'
basic information processing in the form of differentiating/integrating -
this internalisation is reflected in what the neurology does and in the ease
with which our maps 'fit' reality.
The IDM focus is on identifying the TEMPLATE for analogy/metaphor where we
use it, an INVARIENT form, for ALL categorisations such that in EACH
category/specialisation we will find blending, bonding, bounding, binding at
work.
This GENERAL is then CUSTOMISED, PARTICULARISED, SPECIALISED, by
consciousness through linkage of the universal qualities to a particular
context. Out of that linkage comes a lexicon to allow for identification of
DIFFERENCE when the underneath is SAME - we all have a sense of 'wholeness'
but what it is applied to is LOCAL - we label 'wholeness' to reflect the
context and so allow us to differentiate wholeness in context X from
wholeness in context Y.
You seem to miss this template point repeatedly, do you just read the prose
and expect, due to your experience etc that you already know? LOL! There is
the suggestion here that either (a) you have not read the IDM material or
(b) not thought about it carefully. This is obvious with your next
statement:
> That is another observation of
> the importance of metaphor in expanding and developing the
> vocabulary of any language. I completely agree that analogies
> and metaphors are the foundation for human thinking. I have
> written papers on that point and worked with Arun Majumdar
> in developing programs that build on that idea.
>
This casual, flippant, reply indicates that you totally miss the depth of
what IDM and blending, bonding, bounding, binding etc is about - it covers
the TEMPLATE we use as a species for ALL analogies/metaphors. The qualities
covered in IDM are what 'resonates' and so allows for the ease in making
analogies/metaphors across specialisations; we move past the words and into
the qualities; thus when I say X is like Y what resonates is the FEELING
mapped to X with the same FEELING mapped to Y; the difference is in the
CONTEXTS that elicited the label X and the label Y. It is the SAMNESS
beneath the labels that is the level of meaning, what we all share as
species-members and so allows us to communicate WITHOUT words. All
REPRESENTATIONS will map to a QUALITY derived from the METHOD used to derive
meaning - oscillations of differentiating/integrating, aka WHAT/WHERE.
Due to the DUALITY in processing, where we utilise the base elements of
differentiating/integrating, so blending, bonding, bounding, and binding are
extended into the EIGHT basic qualities usable to map meaning:
Blending becomes A-blend / To-blend
Bonding becomes A-bond / To-bond
Bounding becomes A-bound / To-bound
Binding becomes A-bind / To-bind
The A/To dichotomy (showing us the fundamentals of nouns/verbs) is a
qualifier and can be replaced by any context-determined qualifier of a
differentiating/integrating type as in explicit/implicit, expand/contract,
positive/negative etc etc
This basic set is then applied recursively (or more so using hyperbolic
development rather than expoential - and so 2^N gives way to N^2) to give
all of the POSSIBLE composite forms - and due to the recursion so each
quality will reflect aspects of all of the others - reflecting the encoding
of the whole in each part and so allowing for local 'variations' in
expressions depending on context.
This localisation means that some POTENTIALS never get ACTUALISED and as
such a 'skew' develops in perceptions where the ad hoc manner of development
means the 'whole picture' is never filled-out - and not even 'seen' (until
know through the work i neurosciences etc)
ALL of this material is FREE of any context other than our sense of meaning.
We are mapping the UNIVERSAL used to derive meaning; the template from which
all LANGUAGE stems, be it the language of nation, a discipline, or an
individual; be it English or Mathematics or Music - at the level of IDM
there are no such abstract/sensory distinctions where it is all patterns of
differentiating/integrating. LOCAL nuances will skew the language into the
direction of the specialisation but the GENERAL pattern is retained and it
is THAT material that allows for the concept of analogy and metaphor to
develop.
As such, these qualities, this template, is the beginnings of meaning and as
such seeds all assertions of IS-ness. The template could be considered as
the core ontology in that it maps all "IS-ness" from the universal level of
differentiating/integrating. The issue is our consciousness is more precise
through its use of labels - it DEMANDS labels such that the template is
re-labeled in each context, at all scales, to bring out 'precision' in
identification - and so the countless ontologies we as a conscious species
keep coming up with!
> But that does not affect the basic point: the truth of any
> statement does not depend on how it was derived or whether
> the words used in the sentence were derived by metaphorical
> or metonymic extensions from some more concrete terminology.
>
The concept of 'truth' relates to the FEELING of syntax, of 'correctness'.
That FEELING is mapped to the left hemisphere in most. GO 'deeper' and the
roots of that FEELING appear to be in our methods of mapping - in the middle
brain, older than the neocortex (often called the limbic system or
mammallian brain), the hippocampus will 'frame' data to reflect in the two
forms of mapping, waypointing vs vectoring, and from there a more primitive
focus on territorial mapping - IOW a focus on IDENTITY. As such there is the
indication of truth is a PERSONAL construct, rooted in our sense of
identity, that has become exaggerated and so universalised through
consciousness. Truths as such reflect associations with ownership and
personal identity. As we move up the development chain so there is a
differentiation of truth in SELF that excludes truth that makes no
distinction of self from territory; this is indicative of the sense of 'ME'
getting stronger 'within' the bounds of the body (but we still have
'territorial' drives to varying degrees and indicative of issues about 'ME')
Thus we can have personal truths, collective truths, species truths (aka
universals). Thus, the truth of any statement IS dependent on how it was
derived - thus reflecting the context-sensitive nature of 'truths'. Your
interpretation of truth is from a universal, idealist, mechanistic,
perspective and as such is not suitable for mapping issues of IS-ness, it is
poorly differentiated ;-)
(we can recurse the term 'truth' into 'A truth' vs 'To truth' and so flesh
out all POSSIBLE parts, as qualities, that reflect its use - LOCAL context
will then give these qualities labels).
> Among your other pet words are recursion, XOR, and AND.
> We've used those things for years. If you think that you
> have some special ways of using them that are relevant to
> the topic of any note, do it. Don't just throw words around.
>
I dont. Your ignorance of my material AGAIN shows here - or perhaps it is
your conceit that you think you understand what I am saying - you obviously
dont, you need to focus more, think more deeply, carefully. For example, you
have FAILED totally in comprehending what I have presented re a property of
recursion in its encoding of meaning. In the context of meaning derivation
the methodology covered is NOT mentioned in ANY text re recursion, there is
NOTHING in ANY IT source that covers it OTHER THAN a possible source in BCF
(Blake Canonical Form - as covered in Frank Markham Brown's "Boolean
Reasoning" - not easy to read! ;-)) - all of the focus on recursion is on a
generic use of recursion as a method, there is no considerations of the
method contributing some properties of its own to the interpretation of
things. As such this reflects a focus on SEQUENCE as compared to SET.
The IDM material shows patterns of relationships etc, 'genetic code'
creations etc through the use of the method - IOW there are properties in
recursion other than just a tool for 'self-referencing'.
If you want to respond to something 'novel', at least spend some time
trying to understand it, or just go back to your ignoring it - which is fine
BTW since either (A) at some time you will HAVE to understand it, or (B) you
can go on with your life and it will pass you by. No problem to me. ;-) - I
came back to the list with a particular question about recursion - a
question all so far have failed to answer.
Chris.