From: J. Maxwell Legg (income@ihug.co.nz)
Date: Mon Sep 14 1998 - 05:51:30 MDT
Cen-IT Rob Harris wrote:
> ETHICS AND MORALITY CAN NOT EVOLVE
> .....They are forever fixed like the set of INTEGERS
>
> Is this a popular opinion amongst you all ? (Just curious).......
>
I see ethics and morality as non linear and am busy programing a
parallel version of The Ingrid Thought Processor to sum things in a non
linear way using Independant Component Analysis. Just now, on another
list dealing with Personal Construct Theory, I wrote:-
---------------------------
I like a proposition that says there are 'gate' constructs that
separates to
a minimal extent both a rational set and an irrational set of constructs
within a single superordinate statespace but that when these constructs
are
either removed or reinforced then the space bifurcates and only one
remains
active within the stream of awareness. When I say 'either removed or
reinforced', I'm saying their (the gate construct's) positions as
independent
components are raised or lowered in significance. In a system which uses
dendritic pruning to eradicate from memory, those failed or irrational
spaces,
there would be a meaninglessness to the loss of this information in that
it
couldn't be resurrected on future occasions and come back into play if
and
when the 'gate' constructs rose again in significance. I prefer an
independent component analysis definition that gently paralyzes the
irrational set.
I have used the above split/combination method to study conspiracy
theory
and have good examples showing the effect of these 'gate' constructs.
Incidentally, when the gate constructs are used to bind both rational
and
irrational spaces together it is interesting to see, in a plot over
time, of
cause and effect, that they (the cause and effect) are usually
orthogonal (90
degrees) to each other, whereas when the 'gate' constructs are removed
and
there is a bifurcation into two state spaces, then cause and effect are
more
often antagonistic (180 degrees) to each other. I feel it is therefore
possible to maintain a imperfect world view that contains the rational
and
irrational and still remain stable. However it is at a subordinate level
that the core or 'gate' construct kicks in to mediate behavior.
Is my understanding of a core construct correct, or does my definition
of a
'gate' construct refer to something else?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:34 MST