Hear's to 3M! Messanger, Message, Meaning! Lonnie Courtney Clay
On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 4:28:14 AM UTC-7, einseele wrote: > > Hello Lonnie > > Yes I remember our e-meeting... > The pheromone example applies of course, in fact is much better than > the hormone I gave, although goes to the same point, which to me is > the message itself. > The pheromone, or the hormone are not the message whatsoever, they > "carry", they are the physical transport, the car, the bus, the shoe, > flesh, anything, whatever. > And you said it well, to all irrelevant parties that will mean > nothing. > > Why any other message should be any different, If someone writes/ > speaks to me in Chinese I will be unable to read it. > Does this mean that I cannot understand the message? Of course not, I > cannot understand the transport. > > So the most important point here is to get that that "transport" is > not the "message". Where is the message then... > The message can only be absent, because it will never consists of its > "transport" > > Message here equals meaning, information, or if you want the part we > all understand regardless if it is carried by binary, hexadecimal, > hormone, Chinese or Braille. > > Back to math all these meanings above I want to think as arithmetic, > and the transport part, these are the "languages", as geometry > > Finally the hypothesis is, respectively Math and Language base on > Geometry and.... Geometry as well > > I'm sorry I did not check your posts over the net, I will do that (the > I part I still distrust, but I'm involved as well, so I (again) cannot > claim anything different, 'I' is not a good reference no matter if it > is yours or mine, I never liked another "I" lover, Descartes ) > regards > > Carlos > > > > On May 24, 12:53 pm, Lonnie Clay <clayl...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Hiya einseele! To carry your hormone analogy a bit further, Mother Nature > > > causes Pheromones to be emitted from scent glands to be decoded by > nostrils > > of (for example) potential mates or to warn off enemy species of > approaching > > danger. When scented these encoded molecules have meaning to one's own > > species, related species, and associated predator or prey species which > have > > evolved in the same habitat as the species emitting a scent. To all > others > > the scent is inconsequential, random noise as it were. To carry the > physical > > analogy back into the world of abstraction where we are communicating in > > English, cryptography as applied to text messages becomes relevant. > > > > Last year you and I had a bit of a disagreement which you explained as a > > distaste which you felt regarding my heavy usage of the word "I". I > > suggested that you should do your own thing and grant me the privilege of > > > doing mine. You agreed. The question arises in my mind of whether you > have > > been following my posts on the internet by tracking "Lonnie Courtney > Clay" > > using Google notifications. If not then disregard my question and > consider > > reading the posts sorted by date from Friday the 20th until today on > Google > > groups if your interest is piqued. My question is this einseele : Do you > > recoil from a stench of abomination, or strain towards a whiff of > paradise > > from reading my recent posts? I value your opinion! > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 24, 2011 6:48:43 AM UTC-7, einseele wrote: > > > > > Hello Neil > > > > > I was missing your writings here, I believe Sam as well. > > > > > Detectives look into special traces and the basic idea is that they > > > base their findings in a sort of distrust. > > > They need somehow to distrust the sorrounding world. Otherwise they > > > would not get the deepness needed to undercover the crime. Your inner > > > cop most surely has a lot to tell us. > > > > > Scientist I believe do the same with their stuff, also researchers, > > > psychologists, lawyers (God save us all), writers, actors, my uncle > > > Rita, everybody. So... > > > > > Al this is to try a point about reading, which is not as naif as it > > > looks. > > > > > The question is about Nature (we have to give her a name), when > > > certain level of certain hormone is reached, the system decides to > > > trigger certain action. That action has nothing to do with the hormone > > > itself, which is the "chemical messenger". There is a message, so > > > something is needed to "read" it. > > > And the text of that message, to me of course, can only be regarded as > > > a geometry question. Actually I dont believe there is a reader. > > > "Nature" is our own abstraction. > > > But then, why should be us any different. Same applies to DNA, and > > > Alchemy btw > > > > > The organ, the hormone and the system need to agree on the message, > > > and I can only imagine matching perfect "forms", no room for ideal/ > > > concrete differences here. Perfect in this sense needs to be real. > > > (what a mess) > > > > > Carlos > > > > > On May 22, 8:53 pm, archytas <nwt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I can never envisage complex shapes and geometry. I can get into > > > > approximation (like approximating the area of a circle with > > > > triangles). When I see an argument I don't generally find myself > > > > going to summary; it always seems to expand (though I do 'summarise' > a > > > > lot to 'bolloxs' or 'taken as already read'). The cop left in me > > > > still separates 'evidence' from 'piss and wind'. A few years back, > > > > watching news of the Soham killings (of two young girls), I found > > > > myself 'alarmed' when the killer's girlfriend came on. She seemed > > > > just a concerned person who had known the kids at first, but then I > > > > started to feel something wrong (the killer, Huntley was not known > > > > then). What I felt was that she was doing was using her work as a > > > > teaching assistant with the girls to impress 'me' that she had cared > > > > so much about them. To the cop in me, this was 'sign' of psychopath > > > > behaviour - I can explain why, but it would take ages. The actual > > > > investigation was a total cock-up to that time, before some serious > > > > detectives moved in. This was very much my reaction before > hindsight. > > > > > > Now, I could be telling this story now to impress on my 'cop > > > > ability'. Even saying this could just be some sort of 'deferral > > > > ploy'. We are complex shits at times! I was right, but this isn't > > > > the point either. The occasion of a moment like this is hugely > > > > complex. And it's not just an occasion of hunch, or even recognition > > > > > of micro-expressions or whatever. Or about playing detective. > > > > > > 'Sam's video' above strikes a chord in me. Nearly all I hear on > > > > climate problems has nothing to do with them - it's mostly just media > > > > > dorkism. Our 'arguments' need to be understood in terms of what they > > > > > 'may really address'. Years ago, I bought an academic book called > > > > 'Audiences' hoping it would 'address' this - it didn't and was just > > > > dross. > > > > > > Hard to get anywhere near what I mean at the moment. I like Francis > > > > Bacon's 'Idols'. Try reading him - it's bloody awful and I can > barely > > > > cope. There are around 11 idols to be found over 4 texts - and 4 of > > > > the Idols are really significant. I find something like them in > > > > Berkeley and Wittgenstein. Most of all this writing may as well be > > > > dark energy. > > > > > > Now, I'm not talking about being able to 'read sign' about character > > > > or truth like every fuckwit and her dog pretend they can just before > > > > the bastard shafts them or as they become Captain Hindsight > explaining > > > > how they knew. It's not psychology. > > > > > > This won't help directly either. What is the geometry of argument? > > > > How does it form hubs? As argument algorithms produce hubs of > control > > > > can we identify them? Blather I know, yet we now have an algorithm > > > > that can work out control in complex systems - potentially ending > > > > 'economics'. > > > > > >http://barabasilab.neu.edu/projects/controllability/isabout such an > > > > algorithm - reported in Nature May 12th 2011 (there's a google gadget > > > > > for Nature). > > > > > > I'm not making linear sense - yet we could see my reaction to the > > > > killer's munter as a node address, Bacon's Idols as nodes - and maybe > > > > > on to my interests about nodes of fear and other matters 'hidden' > > > > hyper-addressed in argument. From psychology to lingustic forms > > > > revealed? > > > > > > On May 22, 5:38 am, Sam Carana <sam....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > Sam Carana > > > > > > > On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, archytas <nwt...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Excellent Sam! > > > > > > > > On May 21, 12:55 am, Sam Carana <sam....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Good to hear from you too, Carlos, an excellent post! > > > > > > > >> I always like to explore similarities and differences between > maths > > > > > >> and language. I love your idea of form (geometry) as a more > likely > > > > > >> basis of maths than arithmetic. > > > > > > > >> However, let's be careful not to fall into Socrates/Plato type > of > > > > > >> assumptions of native knowledge. The square of the hypotenuse > might > > > > > >> equal the sum of the squares of the other two sides of a > > > right-angled > > > > > >> triangle, but that only works within a context that is > artificial in > > > > > > > >> the first place. After all, in nature something may have a > certain > > > > > >> length at a given moment, but the next moment the temperature > will > > > be > > > > > >> different, resulting in expansion or contraction of the material > on > > > > > >> which the triangle was drawn, etc. Yes, such expansion may take > > > place > > > > > >> over the entire triangle, but not exactly the same in each part. > > > > > > > > >> Anyway, my point is that scientific analysis may, by taking > > > something > > > > > >> in isolation, take things out of context. > > > > > > > >> Let me get back to language, to show what I mean. I sometimes > think > > > > > >> that the meaning words is formed more through relations in the > > > brain, > > > > > >> rather than that meaning existed inherent in the word. > Observations > > > > > >> are stored in our brain and the links between observations, as > > > stored > > > > > >> in our mind, determine their meaning, rather than that meaning > was > > > > > >> inherent in words. > > > > > > > >> Applying that idea to maths, the value of a number would be > > > determined > > > > > >> by its place within a sequence of numbers, i.e. its value being > > > > > >> relative to the other numbers, allowing one to zoom in and out, > > > > > >> magnifying the sequence, while remaining the relationship > between > > > > > >> numbers. > > > > > > > >> Again, let me go back to language, to show what I mean. Language > is > > > > > >> often seen as based in words that are part of verbal language > > > (audio). > > > > > >> However, as you say, it makes sense to use form (video) as the > basis > > > > > > > >> of meaning. Form is part of our visual perception. We recognize > > > things > > > > > >> visually, because their form remains the same, as we approach it > > > > (zoom > > > > > >> in and out). > > > > > > > >> Thus, it makes sense to argue that much of the meaning of words > is > > > > > >> founded in forms, as part of visual perception, even though many > > > > > > >> linguists have traditionally regarded most languages to be more > > > > > >> audio-based. Indeed, for centuries teachers have used the > institute > > > of > > > > > >> school to remove many visual parts of language (such as gestures > and > > > > > > > >> body-language), as if only the audio was important, then further > > > > > > >> stripping language even of intonation and other life, to end up > with > > > > > > > >> written words, as if words in isolation constituted the > perfection > > > of > > > > > >> language. As a result, children all > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
