Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA22576 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 23 Feb 2002 03:29:34 GMT X-Originating-IP: [209.240.222.132] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: ality Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 22:24:06 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F247FB7NrJiscLXkwhD00014ac7@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Feb 2002 03:24:07.0223 (UTC) FILETIME=[8D332C70:01C1BC19] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: "Dace" <edace@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: ality
>Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:40:20 -0800
>
>
>
>
> > > Once again the same problem. Generic insults like "oversimplified
> > > assertion" do nothing to prove your point. They're a symptom of
> > > insecurity. You're afraid some of the people on this list might not
>be
> > > as smart as you and might require help in arriving at the "correct"
> > > interpretation.
> > >
> > I stand by my statement. It was an attack on your logic not an attack on
> > your person. The fact that the brain makes mistakes does not invalidate
> > a physical memory hypothesis
>
>Nor have I ever claimed it does.
>
> > and is a generic oversimplification.
>
>Exactly. You're caricaturing my position with a gross oversimplification
>and then dismissing it on that basis.
>
> > On the other hand this statement
> >
> > >Gotta love those passive-aggressives
> >
> > from the end of the next post has nothing to do with our discussion
>here.
>
>Nor was it intended to further our discussion. It was a reaction to your
>sublimated hostility. Unlike you, when I get personal, I'm up front about
>it.
>
> > The inconsistency in your position on personal attacks is also visible
>in
> > the logic behind your 'mind and memory' position.
> >
> > For example
> >
> > You offer
> > > The point is that the mind, not the brain, imperfectly recalls the
>past,
>as
> > > we would expect, since the past isn't around anymore and therefore has
> > > to be reconstructed. On the other hand, if memory were a
>computer-like
> > > storage device, it should function with roughly the same degree of
> > > accuracy found in computers themselves.
> >
> > as explanation for why the mind recalls imperfectly but later you say
> >
> > > Rather,
> > > the past remains present, despite no longer being spatio-materialized.
> > > Time is absolute and singular. There's no succession of discrete
> > > "moments." There's one moment, and the moment remains present.
> > > Time is fluid. There's no boundary to set off existence (present)
>from
> > > oblivion (past). There's no demarcation-- look all you want. The
> > > present bleeds into past. The true present embraces all of time--
>what
> > > is "past" up to and including the material present. The brain is the
> > > material present of the mind. The mind traverses time just as the
> > > brain traverses space. The mind perceives the past as easily as the
> > > eye/brain perceives light.
> >
> > So in one paragraph your explanation for imperfections is that the past
> > isn't around anymore. Three paragraphs later you say that it actually
>is.
>
>Instead of trying to understand my point, you're fishing for
>contradictions.
>As I stated in my post, the mind perceives the *form* of the past, not its
>appearance, which must be reconstructed. The past isn't *materially*
>around
>anymore.
>
> > Even if you take the first paragraph by itself you still have no
> > explanation for why the process of reconstruction would be imperfect.
> > You just state that it naturally follows that since it is reconstruction
> > it must of necessity be imperfect. Good old res ipsa loquitor.
>
>You snipped the paragraph in which I spelled it out:
>
>"The past is intangible. It's got no material substance. Doesn't take up
>any space. And even if it did, there's no light to bounce off it. The
>past
>is dark. What we remember is the form of the event, not its appearance.
>Memory requires (imaginary) sets and lighting. Naturally it's not going to
>display computer-like accuracy."
>
> > And once again you have no explanation for how neurons facilitate this.
>
>Nor is any explanation required. My argument is a priori and must be dealt
>with on logical terms. You've got your head stuck in your posteriori.
>
> > > > And you don't have any mechanism that you can connect to the
> > > > brain. You simply have no explanation for how neurons do this.
> > >
> > > That we can view a coin from opposite perspectives doesn't mean
> > > "heads" and "tails" are separate objects. No need for any
>connections.
> > > The mind is no more reducible to the brain than vice versa, any more
> > > than tails might be reducible to heads or the other way round.
> >
> > In other words even though memory is located someplace else
>
>Memory has no spatial location. The past is nowhere.
>
> > actual thinking processes are created by the functioning of neurons.
> > Somehow all the alleged problems that apply to memory don't apply to
> > the process of thought itself.
>
>Thoughts are not reducible to neurons (and their synaptic connections).
>Thinking involves representation, which is not a physical or chemical
>property.
>
Thinking has a physical or chemical basis. Thinking costs calories and
involves electrochemical events and flow of neurotransmitters. Thoughts are
reducible in principle to neurophysiology of neurons and their synaptic
connections, not parapsychological phenomena. I've wasted too much precious
ATP trying to bring this point across to you. My sodium/potassium pumps are
working overtime.
>
>That which represents the world cannot simultaneously be part of
>the world represented. To ascribe representation to the brain is to endow
>it with a magical property possessed by no other object, living or dead.
>You're setting the brain apart, i.e. sacralizing it. This is your
>religion.
>
>
>
I've got a bunch of pictures (momentos) in photo albums which are
representations of the world and which, when developed became as much a part
of this world as the scenes they represent. Set up a videocamera with a
monitor. The image on the monitor screen represents the region of the world
the camera is aimed at. The original and its not quite perfect
representation co-exist within the same world (slight time delays
notwithstanding). This is all quite material and mechanistic. There's no
ghost in the camera machine.
I can draw a picture of a flower on paper. The flower and its representation
on paper (with limitations due to my lousy artistic abilities) co-exist
within the same world.
My memories of the flower itself and of the drawing I made co-exist within
the same world as the flower and drawing. My memories are not floating
within some self-resonant ethereal realm. My memories come from within my
noggin.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
===============================================================
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 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 03:39:31 GMT