Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA26283 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:15:11 GMT Message-ID: <004701c1bd6f$5fb37320$5124f4d8@teddace> From: "Dace" <edace@earthlink.net> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <B89DAB7A.1E8%srdrew_1@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: mind Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 12:10:57 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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
From: Steve Drew
> >>> The point is that the mind, not the brain, imperfectly recalls the
past
> >
> >> I have only done very basic philosophy, but as i understood it the
> >> mind/body duality has still not come up with an answer to the problem
> >> of what happens to the 'mind' when the body does not exist. Further, if
> >> mind is distinct from brain then how does something that has no
> >> physical presence influence that which is physical. If it has a
physical
> >> presence where is it located - the pineal gland perhaps? :-)
> >
> > To attempt to reduce the mind to the brain is to imply duality. After
all,
> > you can't reduce tails to heads, can you? They're already the same
> > thing-- just viewed from different perspectives.
>
> I was under the impression that Descartes duality was the separation of
> mind and body, hence my query. Duality refers to separate things not two
> sides of the same coin.
Which is why I'm not a Cartesian.
> > The mind is the brain's living history,
> > both influencing it and being influenced by it. The brain is the mind's
> > current spatiomaterialization. Two sides of the same coin.
>
> This makes no sense to me i'm afraid. To me the brain and mind are
> inseparable. There are no sides to look at.
Let's say you flip a coin. It comes up heads. To avoid dualism, do you
say, "Well, it came up headstails. I guess that means I winlose." That we
can linguistically distinguish two things doesn't mean we're ontologically
distinguishing them. That I refer to "mind" and "brain" doesn't mean I
regard them as being separate.
> >> Secondly, not all habitual behaviours are memetic. Every so
> >> often i find i have the need to eat. The only behavioural aspect is
> >> where i will have lunch and what :-)
> >
> > Right. That you eat certain things at certain times and places is an
> > example of your own personal habits. However, our shared, cultural
> > habits do constrain your choices in these matters.
>
> Not quite what i had in mind. What i meant that certain repetitive
> behaviours are the same in any culture, such as eating sleeping etc. How
> we go about them is cultural. But you would not term eating or sleeping as
> memetic behaviours. Hence not all habitual bahaviours are not
> necessarily memetic
Memes, whether conceptual or behavioral, are bounded on one side by genes
and on the other side by intentions.
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 : Sun Feb 24 2002 - 20:26:12 GMT