From: Francesca S. Alcorn (unicorn@greenepa.net)
Date: Mon 01 Mar 2004 - 19:40:44 GMT
Chris said:
>Yeah I'd say that was a fair summary so far :)
>
>Although I have to strap on a flag about environments of various kinds.
>
>I (in answer to the other two replies to this post) _am_ one of
>those fundamentalists, although I have a rather different definition
>of the term meme (necessarily, cos I can't think of a better word of
>my own). But yes I am one.
>
>That doesn't make me anti-social science! That would be like a
>phycisist denigrating biology because it's basically all physics at
>bottom! There are appropriate methods to particular levels of focus.
>
>Credo: I do believe in a mind built of tiny patterns, which copy
>repeatedly internally a la Dennett, and which form the building
>blocks of successive levels of structure -- like physics begets
>chemistry begets life begets culture if you get me -- each built of
>the blocks of stuff from the level below. So measuring nerve
>impulses or oxygen uptake, then trying to connect that with thoughts
>(not that anyone was) would be like trying to understand why 'The
>Office' is funny by looking at a slowed-down trace of the firing
>pattern of the gun(s) in your TV's CRT.
I just got the "Physics of Consciousness" for Christmas. Haven't
read it yet, but supposedly it does just that.
frankie
===============================================================
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 2.1.5 : Mon 01 Mar 2004 - 19:50:51 GMT