Heidegger

In a message dated 13/10/2008 03:29:29 GMT Standard Time,
_lofting at unwired.com.au_ (mailto:lofting@unwired.com.au)

Chris Lofting writes:

Any system that is dependent in some way on history, and so determinism, is
a closed system overall. As a genetically-determined life form there is an
attraction to symmetry (’perfection’ etc) and so a closed system. The benefits
of such are developed through conservation of energy in an thermodynamic
universe and so the generation of habits/instincts; these refined by the
mediating nature of consciousness and its creation of languages to enable such
mediation and refinement.

Jud:
Hi Chris, Although I find that lots of what you write is difficult to
understand, I do recognise it as a complete ontology and I always consider
ontologies interesting to study, though I must confess I usual read them by
attempting to translate them, or at least compare them to my own view of the world. I
suppose everybody takes this attitude.

I do agree with you when you say that *habits/instincts which the conatus,
or the existential imperative judges to be beneficial. I also agree that
experientially, individual organisms refine or mediate this tendency towards
symmetry, but at that point we part company, for I believe that *consciousness*
is a myth and that *the experiential mediator* is simply the thinking meat
(including the neuronal perceptive pâté.)

I also agree that the conservation of energy is a prime factor in a
thermodynamic universe and indeed may be the key to understanding any impingement
whether (in the case of animate entities) socially deliberate or by
happenstance, and in the case of inanimate causal objects that what we see as *damage*
(say to a crumpled car wing) is actually a manifestation of the conservation of
energy, in the sense of the object modifying itself morphologically as a
feature of preserving its energetic integrity (its conserved energy) in a form
of *damage limitation.* If *nature* was such that all entities refused
morphological deformation - then chaos would prevail and the cosmos would simply be
a series of continuous explosions of matter.

Speaking *off the cuff* here - I am not sure if what I have just constructed
here is no more that an extremely long-winded and complex tautology here, or
whether there is something in it that reflects upon so-called
*energy-transfer* when to billiard balls strike each other - any comments?

Chris:
The neurology functions WITHIN symmetry through a topological dynamic that
allows for distortions of symmetry to maintain stability in an open context.

Jud:
I suppose that if there were symmetrical constraints innovation would be
stifled period.

Chris:
The mereological element is in the dynamics of anti-symmetry (parts, aspects
processing). Formation of a dichotomy covering anti-symmetry/symmetry, and
the self-referencing of such, presents us the asymmetric and the world of
consciousness and mediation dynamics. (we note the close association of
anti-symmetry and asymmetry and so the link to the experience of pure difference, the
unique)

Jud:
Whilst I agree in principle here, why extrapolate the asymmetric and the
world of mediation dynamics as an emergent, supra-material, almost theological,
soul-like *consciousness* at this point? You introduce unnecessary
complication, invite argument from moderns, and in my opinion place unnecessary
complications and explanations which, shorn of its intimations of transcendence,
has great promise? There is no more need to posit an *extra level* of the
non-existential on to a conglomerate of perfectly healthy functional brain cells.
Would you do the same with a computer, and claim the there is a paranormal
judge or *mediator * as well as the hardware - or that *software is not simply
a chip, a C drive, a CD or floppy programmed electronically (in other words
an object materially altered or modified.)

Does metal need a *moderator* to tell it to rust? Does a match-head need an
intercessor to tell it to flame when struck? Does ice need a reconciler to
help accommodate its return to a liquid state? If such precipitations and
change is inherent in the fabric of inanimate objects, why should we believe that
what is considered a higher form of material (organic matter) cannot
*handle* similar existential change (tasks) intrinsically?

Chris:
Our neurology and its sensory systems reflect aggregation of ’samenesses’ to
develop information processing and the translation of differences to sameness
(and so the development of symmetry). What these symmetry-determined systems
detect is more symmetry and so all that is sensed is grounded in symmetry -
and so that means that at least 4% of the universe is biased to the
symmetric. The remaining 96% is IMPLIED since we cannot detect it other than through
detection of gravitational anomalies that ‘upset’ our models.

Jud:
Generally agreed (though I would nit-pick over some of the terms that imply
a departure from the real-world, i. e., the reification of *system* into a
pseudo-entity.) The use of the word *system* requires care, for it acquires a
‘phantom objectivity’, an autonomy that seems so strictly rational and
all-embracing as to conceal every trace of its fundamental nature: the relation
between people or objects. I personally prefer to use “non-symmetry” instead
of *asymmetry* in the sense that asymmetry is thought of as the cause of an
effect (an *asymmetric* free radical for example is an atom, molecule or ion
with unpaired electrons, etc. These unpaired electrons are usually highly
reactive, so radicals are likely to take part in chemical reactions and (in
humans *cause* damage. An asymmetric pornographic remark causes damage in polite
society, an asymmetric atheist claim can *cause* damage in a fundamentalist
community etc. In other words asymmetry has been getting a bad press for years.

Chris:
Of note in the context of evolution, as a social species we practice
symmetric thinking where such lacks the precision of the asymmetric where that
precision requires a competitive context to pressure the neurology to
self-reference through the making of finer and finer distinctions.

Jud:
Agreed. Here I would associate *symmetric thinking* with *thinking which
provides strategies that have worked in the past,* on the basis of *if it works
- don’t mess with it.* The societal pressures start when the penny drops
for those elements of the tribe, society, nation for whom it doesn’t work so
well, although it works well for a minority (see the present financial crisis.)

Chris:
This moves the neurology into the complexity/chaos realm and so allows for
fragmenting of symmetry (into ‘local symmetries’ that appear as parts but also
as wholes in their own right - this can elicit paradox as it can the
tautological) that then can re-configure and so reflect adaptations to change
(something that does not occur in ‘pure’ symmetry)

Jud:
Hence local asymmetricalties are *absorbed* and become incorporated into
the symmetry? Is that what you mean. If so, if they are then communicated and
accepted by greater society they can be classed as *memes? Do you believe
*memes* exist?

Chris:
Consciousness manifests itself in mediation dynamics and so through use of
languages - verbal and non-verbal.

Jud:
We hit our old disagreement-buffers again here. For me only the conscious
brain exists - not some metaphysical miasma that *arises* or * dynamically
insinuates itself an invisible endocranial invader.

Chris:
This focus on mediation as compared to completion means all languages
express incompleteness/uncertainty; these findings are best discovered when we
self-reference the self-referenced and so move into meta-levels, be they
metaphysics or metamathematics or metalanguages. As genetic life forms the ‘drive’ is
to conserve energy through learning of good instincts/habits. This means
that completion is always unconscious in the form of an instinct/habit/memory -
IOW once something is complete and so no longer in need of mediation,
consciousness disappears (Libet’s work shows this).

Jud:
Yes I agree. You mean it is interiorised into man’s portable survival-pack
which is the brain and is sanctioned within society as *normal behaviour?*

Chris:
However, the success of consciousness elicits an addiction to consciousness..

Jud:
Chris - if you got rid of this primitive meta-meat *consciousness jive you
and I would get along like a house on fire.

Chris:
- and so if there is nothing to mediate we create something. The benefits of
individual consciousness to the species is in its increasing of the
bandwidth of the species in dealing with reality - where of the billions of states it
is possible for one to come up with some perspective that can change the
world overnight.

Jud:
My contention is that in the modern world of mega-technology and Twin
Towers, with 95% of the population of the world’s most powerful country believing
in a God of some sorts, while in South America in the burgeoning economy of
Brazil religion holds a similar sway, not to mention the religious fascism of
the middle east and elsewhere the bandwidth of reality-contactedness is well
and truly plugged with a tampion that is as difficult to remove as shit from a
suede shoe. the species in dealing with reality. Why, even respected
observers of the neurological scene like you, (who it could be argued should no
better with your intelligence quotient) are employing reification in order to
analyse the reificators. There is a blockage in the pipeline of progress - it is
plugged tight with transcendentalist reifico-scoria.

Chris:
There are LOCAL energy requirements to do this and so consciousness is a
‘far-from-equilibrium’ state…

Jud:
Isn’t this a healthy state? Does not this imbalance provide hope that a
more reality-contacted ness will emerge - if only by happenstance?

Chris:… and by implication all language manifests neg-entropy that is used
to aid in ever refining energy-conservation through mapping
algorithms/formulas. We can note that all languages stem from neural dynamics covering
categories used to represent reality at the generic level of objects/relationships
aka differentiating/integrating aka nouns/verbs.

Jud:
Yes, this is my consuming interest and main priority, in that the swapping
around of action verbs and the creation of verbal nouns (or gerunds) and making
them nouns is (with the current blocked state of the reality-feed pipe or
reality-data transmission rate constitutes the greatest danger for the future
of humanity.

Chris:
As such the gerund is the generic level, the superposition, of meaning out
of which comes TO something vs A something.

Jud:
Whist I understand that you a drawing what you see as a picture of an
existing state of affairs and not being prescriptive or claiming that reification
is to be recommended, Nevertheless thingification is a superposition process
which has gone horribly wrong, or is certainly no longer appropriate for the
modern world. It is PRECISELY this gerundial thingification or reification of
*Western Society,* the Kafirate, (from Kafi an Arabic word meaning “
rejecter”) by the Moslem fanatics and Bush’s inane reification of thousands of
innocent Muslim, men, women and kids as *The Evil Empire* and so on, which has lead
to the world trembling on the lip of mutual oblivion.

Chris:
“Matenergy” is an attempt to communicate this superposition but due to its
focus on matter and energy may be a misleading term since we can detect matter
and energy but not dark matter nor dark energy - they are only implied.

Jud:
It’s there Chris - the perturbations of other cosmic elements point to it,
in my opinion they will identify it certainly in my lifetime (within another
20 years fingers and legs crossed)

Chris:
From a linguistics position, we can take matter and energy (aka radiation)
and form the standard perspective, fermions and bosons. From here we note the
presence of anti-symmetry (fermions in the form of the XOR nature of
electron/positron) and the symmetric (BEC development for bosons and so the EQV
logic operator) and the movement, the language that emerges from forming and
self-referencing the fermion/boson dichotomy. Thus we have:

Jud:
Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately) there are very few of these
anti-particles about these days - most of them were zapped in the first few moments of
the big bang?

Chris:
anti-symmetric : asymmetric : symmetric.

Jud:
You left out (non-symmetric - but that’s OK. I agree with you here.

Chris:
The anti-symmetric/symmetric dynamics are hard-coded in the neurology.
OSCILLATIONS across this dichotomy bring out mediation dynamics and so the
asymmetric.

Jud:
Yes (applause) I agree - but then you go and spoil it by converting the
*mediation dynamics* ( the *0 or 1 decisional numbers game*) which are *brought
out* by these oscillations across this dichotomy, into a mediaevalist
immaterial *part, department * or *aspect* of the brain which you claim acts as a
Cartesian-type homunculus mediator or actuator of beneficial asymmetricality.

Chris:
The USE of language, and the implicit incompleteness of such, can create the
sense of the ‘eternal’ and so of ‘infinity’ but such a sense is indicated as
being a product of methodology.

Jud:
Hear! Hear! Drop the dead donkey of consciousness and (as I mentioned
years ago ) you are going places - retain it and you will remain just another
nameless unknown

Regards,

Jud

**************

Posted on Sunday, October 19th, 2008 at 6:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback