Re: info and physics - from data to date

In reply to John Holgate, who wrote:

"Is your theory equally valid for the domain of human emotions?

Please excuse this perslifage but it might illustrate my point :>

'A date is what I refer to as a brief relationship. It is a
relationships set up
between one mass (XX) and another mass (XY), where the energy from XY
enters the
field of the energy/mass of XX. This brief contact is a date, highly
charged, in present time (brief), highly entropic. Will it be accepted
in full? Rejected in full? Accepted in part? If accepted in part (and
it's never ever accepted in full!)...then, the courtship system will
transform
it, 'interpret' it...within its own MORALITY base. As interpreted,
this energy/mass (sex/love) is now a part of XX's and XY's memory.
It is in perfect time, 'held', it is more stable.

How long will they stay together before entropically dissipating?'

Obviously something is lost in the translation here but I think we can
jump the divide
and compare cross-disciplinary informatory experience (which includes,
say, both protein
binding and psychological 'binding') but I am not convinced that the
environment
(or even the system) is making the 'cut'. It is IMO made by the ghost
behind the camera
- human consciousness.

Any comments"

My comments are that my theories are valid within all three realsm:
the physico-chemical, the biological and the socioconceptual. The
differences between the realms are in the amount of energy that each
realm can process and its speed of processing..and its methods. The
physico-chemical realm will primarily use iconic or mimetic
interactions; the biological realm adds indexical interactions which
greatly enhances both its ability to produce inert matter (ie,
stabilized energy) and enhances the speed of this process. The
socioconceptual realm has added the symbolic interaction which
processes energy very rapidly.

As for the 'cuts' that establish differential gradients in
energy....which MUST be established...or there couldn't be any
interactions in the first place (ie in pure symmetry, as all the
ancients pointed out - nothing moves)...No, I don't agree that human
consciousness is the sole agent of 'cuts'.

In your example of the date/brief relation - I agree with your
outline. It describes a brief sensate-data interaction. Brief sensate
interactions can be very short term and dissipative. How many people
actually can identify 'who was the robber' in an incident that lasted
less than a minute? Their interpretation is not necessarily valid.
However, you describe the interpretation of this brief date between
two individuals as an interpretation according to MORALITY (your
capitals). I'm not sure what morality implies. I would say that the
interaction is interpreted according to the continuum of experiences
of each individual and the evaluation of these experiences is a
secondary action (is this a 'good' act; is it a 'just'act?).
This process of interpretation may itself lead to no long term
memories. If it is a once-only experience, then even when interpreted
(as a brief affair, let's say)...the incident may not be retained in
the human memory.

Back to the cuts. First, for one system to experience another system,
they must be differentiated into two systems. I think that's rather
obvious and can't imagine any argumentation. So- what differentiates
them? I disagree with the view that only ONE agent (the receiver's
consciousness) performs this act. In the human realm - There will be a
differentiation on at least three levels. Physico-chemical, biological
and socioconceptual. The first realm is a sensate experience of two
material realities. That's beyond the capacity of human consciousness
to control. The material body will pick up the radiant energy from
another material body. Equally, biologically, there must be
interactions - a realm of sensate experience that our science is only
now working on. But I can, for example, be affected by viruses without
being conscious of it. So- the cuts are there; and are basic; and are
not due to any individual consciousness. As for human emotions, I
think there aer several stages in interpretation.
There is an internal 'immediate interpretant'. This is a phase of
acknowledgement that "I am affected by something out there". That's as
far as it goes.
Then..there is the 'articulated consciousness' of this interaction. An
external 'dynamic interpretant' phase, which is where I can say " What
affected me was a feeling of love and attraction to X'. Now, the
individual 'focus' has locked in. The individual as an entity can lock
onto another entity and state that 'the interaction between us is
'defined as ABC'.

There is a further conscious articulation of this interaction, which
will analyze and judge the interaction, and come up with a 'final
conclusion' that 'this interaction that we have, which is love, is not
a long-term constructive situation and must be ended. That is, this
final phase makes a judgement, while the Dynamic Interpretant phase
makes a Description. And the internal Immediate Interpretant phase
merely acknowledges the identity of the interaction.

Human consciousness is not a ghost! It's part of that third type of
semiosic reality - the socioconceptual!

Edwina Taborsky
39 Jarvis St. #318
Toronto, Ontario M5E 1Z5
(416) 361.0898
Received on Fri May 24 16:47:25 2002