Re: mind

From: Dace (edace@earthlink.net)
Date: Sun Feb 24 2002 - 20:10:57 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: mind"

    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