Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA20348 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 2 Oct 2000 12:14:30 +0100 Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 12:03:05 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: the conscious universe Message-ID: <20001002120305.A1490@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A5C@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A5C@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 11:38:50AM +0100 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 11:38:50AM +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> Your train of thought here does not presume you know nothing about pencils,
> otherwise, why are you so interested in the graphite? Indeed your train of
> illogic is based on a knowledge of exactly what pencils are for, which is
> why it seems correct to you.
That is truely untestable, entirely a matter of opinion. I don't claim
that example is perfect, but I believe that any disinterested party
would see it as serving its purpose well enough.
> If you truly didn't know what it was, or what purpose it served- even
> whether or not it had a purpose, there's no reason to focus on the graphite
> at all-
You discount idle curiosity, precursor of many of the most important
discoveries.
> not until you pick it up and press it against some kind of surface-
> that's if you don't stick the pointy bit in your ear to use as an ear
> picker, or use it to stab someone (alternative uses that many children have
> found for pencils).
Alternative uses are irrelevant.
> You deliberately deny the possibility of actually holding and testing the
> pencil for possible use, and thus you deny rational testing.
It's an analogy, OK? We're really talking about consciousness. Now
explain how that can be tested.
> Skepticism is
> once again the most sensible approach in such circumstances.
Skepticism leads to the wrong conclusion: that there's two pieces of
graphite, one at each end. How sensible is that?
> Besides, if
> you can't pick it up, then the possibility that graphite runs the whole way
> through it is entirely irrelevant- since if you can't pick it up you can't
> use it, so you've no reason to care about its properties.
Whether you care about the pencil or not is absolutely irrelevant. It's an
analogy, remember?
> Yet again, your example is specious, but you pre-empt the easy demolition of
> it as not understanding. Yet again you confuse not understanding with not
> believing.
It seems very obvious to me that you think you understand, but do not.
Perhaps Joe or Wade can come up with an empirical test of who is correct
on this.
With the best will in the world, I do not have the time to fight on
three fronts. Those who are inclined to read no response as a win,
will probably soon be wallowing in their own "success".
-- Robin Faichney=============================================================== 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 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 12:15:46 BST