Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA18943 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:39:16 GMT Message-ID: <001201c1bb38$bdebe280$0ec2b3d1@teddace> From: "Dace" <edace@earthlink.net> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: Re: ality Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:34:48 -0800 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01C1BAF5.AE0372E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >As I've stated, memory involves reconstruction for the very simple reason
> >that the past has no spatial or material existence. We have to recreate
> >the appearance of recollected events. We go "back in time" in our
> >minds, not our bodies. If, on the other hand, memories are stored in the
> >brain, our recall should be as precise and accurate as a computer
> >retrieving data. That our memories are reconstructed is a problem for
> >the mechanistic view, not mine.
>
> This is the kind of oversimplified assertion that you constantly make.
Another pointless insult. And you accuse me of speaking from emotions?
> Of course there are possible explanations for mistakes in memory. If
> memories are stored as changes in threshold levels of neural receptors
> they could be subject to modification due to a large variety of sources.
> The simple fact that the molecules in cell membranes get replaced over a
> period of time could cause easily cause this. The fact that memory would
> be operating near the quantum level means that is likely to have an
> inherent error factor similar to the way that errors in DNA replication
> occur.
It's far worse than you realize. Neuronal connections are in constant flux.
The brain is incapable of statically storing data. Yes, this would indeed
explain why the brain can't seem to get our memories straight. But if it's
utterly unlike a computer, why continue assuming it stores data?
If the brain is built to store data, it ought to do it well. After all, we
humans took only a few decades to build a device that does it extremely
well. When you start coming up with reasons why it wouldn't do a very good
job of it, you're undermining your position. You're making my argument for
me. Of course the brain would do a lousy job of storing information. That's not what it's built for.
> I don't think I misstated your hypothesis here. You go back in time in
> your mind. So how do people make mistakes? However you feel like
> phrasing it just answer the question. Where do the mistakes come
> from?
Already answered. Consult the top of the post.
> >Memory is the recollection of the past. That's what it has always meant.
> >To remember something is to bring the past back, not materially but
> >mentally. When you have to look up information on a past event, then
> >clearly you're not remembering it. This applies whether you look it up
> >in a book or your brain. Either way, it's data, not memory.
>
> Once again this is your definition. You have no difference here other
> than your reliance on the mind looking up memories in time.
This is a bizarre reformulation of the traditional, *universal* definition of memory. The mind doesn't look up memories in a static, data storage system called "time." To remember is to restore the past into present consciousness. There's no informational intermediary.
> It's circular logic. Since memories are caused by the mind looking
> backward in time they are not the same as data. Since the mind has
> mind has memories it must be able to look backward in time.
If the mind has memories, then it re-presents past experiences. According to the mechanistic theory, the mind has no genuine memories, only data, which are carelessly referred to as "memories." It's an Orwellian shift in language, preventing even the possibility of understanding since the word we traditionally used for it has been redefined into something else.
> >It's a question of logic. The brain is a physical object. The mind and
> >its properties are self-evidently not physical. Yet, just as clearly, there
> >is no mind without a brain. Thus the brain facilitates the mind without
> >containing it.
>
> You've just restated your original hypothesis and inferred that since the
> mind exists there must be a connection. Just explain how the actual
> neurons do it. If they facilitate it then how?
No one knows how the brain facilitates mental existence. However, we can easily demonstrate, a priori, that it does so.
Ted
===============================================================
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 : Fri Feb 22 2002 - 00:49:27 GMT