I also have a (rather abstract) idea of what I believe you might be getting at: The ability of entities such as humans to form tidy abstract symbolic "pictures" of concepts, which provide "satisfaction" to such an individual that they have an "understanding", without necessarily having ever applied correct logic to the forming paradigm. For instance, a person my see an advert on the telly selling posh hair products. Undoubtedly, the word 'natural' will be used over and over. Applying the dictionary definition "natural" to ingredients in a shampoo has no meaning, as there is no such entity as an unnatural ingredient. My point is that the manufacturers are exploiting a common fallacy in people (especially women in my experience), which allows us to form nonsensical drivel into a satisfactory "package" which "looks" like it "makes sense" or "is true" when recalling from memory. ( After all, none of us re-evaluate our conceptions of observable entities every time we reference them in thought - we just "see" the pre-packaged concept which may or may not be logically sound). In my example, the advertisers were using "natural", which conjures images of trees and picturesque idyllic landscapes, which in turn, due to the nature of this common "false concept", imply good health and conformation with our physical requirements. - Which has no basis in logic.
Sound right ? Anyone??
Thanks,
Rob.
> 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?
>
>
>
>
>