Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA06074 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 7 May 2000 04:50:35 +0100 Message-ID: <3914A25C.1B6E9A95@mediaone.net> Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 23:53:16 +0100 From: Chuck Palson <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Fwd: Researchers Identify Brain's Moral Center References: <200005062019.GAA19703@fep7.mail.ozemail.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
See questions in reply text:
Diana Diamond wrote:
> you can trace the right/wrong distinctions back to the Reptilian brain and the mapping of territory using waypoints (as in 'mine..not mine..mine) etc this gets abstracted into correct/incorrect, right/wrong etc
What is the reference here? I have never heard of this langauge being applied to the brain. By Reptilian, do you simply mean the lymbic system?
>
>
> The neurological and psychological data
What psychological data?
> suggests that there is a PRIMARY process in allowing data to 'enter' 'in here' and this is a filtering system based on rigid EITHER/OR distinction making.
Rigid? There are no algorythms? There is no step process? What kind of experiments illustrate this? I am asking this because from what I know about the brain, any such either/or criteria would have to be at an extremely low level. If so, why would you think this could be related to memetics since it is at such a low level? Could you give an example, perhaps, of the types of information you are
talking about?
> Once any data gets passed this it then comes under SECONDARY processing that assumes that since it got past the primary it MUST be meaningful in some way; thus in secondary thinking all is meaningful.
>
> This secondary processing deals with the analysis of harmonics such that you can bring out or suppress aspects of data allowing for a more 'refined' image of the data to emerge. This processing includes the use of internal feedback processes in the from of memories that are added to enhance meaning.
>
Again, this does not ring a bell with me. What kinds of data are you referring to?
>
> If the primary process is at fault, or allows through something 'random' so the secondary process, being as trusting of the primary as it is, cannot tell that there is a 'fault' and will treat the data as all other data it gets.
>
> The trick is to get past the primary processing, the barrier, and the way to do that is to use a wave approach...
>
> Thus understanding how the primary process works as well as its 'location' in the brain is useful if you want to (a) bypass it and get you message 'in here' without moral filtering or (b) build it up, make it either very rigid or more discerning when processing data.
>
"Moral filtering"? Again, I can't imagine that the kind of primary filtering you are talking about would be involved. I need examples.
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 07 2000 - 04:50:49 BST