Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA20489 (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 12:33:27 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: the conscious universe Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:35:09 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIOEHJCJAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20001001201738.A985@reborntechnology.co.uk> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Robin Faichney
> Sent: Monday, 2 October 2000 5:18
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: the conscious universe
>
>
<clip>
> > is not just a logical fallacy, but one
> > committed in bad faith, because you know (or should know, as you
> > have been previously told) better.
>
> I see. Those who have not been exposed to your wisdom can be excused,
> but those who have, and continue to expound views at variance with your
> own, are acting in bad faith.
>
> Your ego is getting out of hand, Joe. You should consider seeking
> specialist help.
>
I agree, but then perhaps so should you! :-) Neither of you are talking
anything other than just interpretations and in us humans all of the
possible interpretations stem from the initial 'hidden' distinctions of
object/relationships.
Joe is talking from an internal linkage perspective, object bias, sometimes
too rigid (and he still has not replied to my comments re the article he
wrote, on-line he tries to be 'robust' and offline he runs, tsk tsk Joe!)
Robin, you are talking from an external linkage perspective where you see
consciousness as being fundamental, everything is linked together. You
obviously seem to deny emergence, transformative or additive perspectives,
or are you being creationist but with your 'god' being 'consciousness'?
My own *interpretation* is that since consciousness is linked to DYNAMIC
processes and it is in dynamic processes that we find complexity and
emergence, and since it is dynamic processes that are the source of feedback
so consciousness emerges from that process, it is a feedback system that
enables 'better' management of our beings and doings.
Such concepts as blindsight suggest lower level pathways are functioning in
parrallel with higher level pathways but there is no conscious awareness of
this other than the experience of a 'feeling' that is expressed in the form
of a guess which turns out to be 'right'.
This method of operation is context sensitive and allows for multiple
processing of data such that (a) WITHIN a level there is a determination of
meaning and (b) BETWEEN levels there is a determination of meaning. There is
thus a bias to SAMENESS (within) and DIFFERENCE (between) (I stress BIAS
here.)
In sameness there is no need for consciousness since there are no perceived
differences, thus a lifeform that is 'pure' genes needs no consciousness.
Our brain, when you view the hemispheres of the neocortex, or just the
simple neuron, habituates to sameness and the overall bias in information
processing is to difference, novelty. Thus 'novel' data elicits high
left/right hemisphere processing that is then intergrated (linked --
hippocampus/amygdala etc processes) and when recalled is detected in rCBF
studies as being more 'whole' with different, and less pronounced, activity.
This sensitivity to difference includes the use of internal feedback, i.e.
memories, that go to pre-empt a catagorisation (with the occasional failure
in that the feedback forces us to see more than what is there).
All of this is an *interpretatation* based on current neuroscience data and
it supports a general methodology of 1:many processing where a particular
context is the '1' and is used as the point of reference for further
analysis of the 'many'.
Neither you, nor Joe have the 'absolute' answer in that both of you are
following particular methods of interpretation as set out by the neurology
IOW there will be MANY who take your perspective re consciousness but there
are also MANY who prefer Joes.
BOTH are 'valid' in that the CONTEXT will determine the 'best' approach at
this time but they are not 'absolutes' since they spring from the hidden
elements within, namely our METHOD of analysis that allows for multiple
interpretations of the one space. Taking the basic 1:many distinctions and
adding recursion both WITHIN and BETWEEN, leads very quickly to a set of
possible interpretations that include yours as well as Joes and all others
(even mine! :-) although mine is more into what is BEHIND these
interpretations)
There is NO WAY that we can come up with a model of the universe that is
'absolute' since we are constrained by our methods of interpretation which
are HARD CODED. IOW the BEST model we can come up with is that that fits our
method of analysis and that includes multiple interpretations! (Otherwise it
is all SAMENESS and so no need for interpretations... or minds...)
No matter how 'far out' they get, all interpretations are founded on a
single method determined by the neurology and used within all contexts and
so on this list some interpretations are 'no-nos' and others are 'great'. I
know some lists where if you presented your comments you would get total
support, others will de-list you immediately! (Same for Joe :-))
The fact that there are these DIFFERENCES shows where we are all coming
from, we over emphasise DIFFERENCE and ignore the SAMENESS elements other
then to use them in our relationships (as in 'likemindedness' [SAMENESS] vs
'burn the bastards!' [DIFFERENCE].)
To suggest that 'Joe needs help' means you are working from a perspective
where in your world people 'like' Joe are 'not welcome'. This suggests
inflexibility, just like Joe (or me!?) and so both parties could use some
'help'! (Although my inflexibility is grounded in the what is BEHIND yours
and Joes and so more stable, but then it is SAMENESS and so 'difficult' to
deal with!? :-))
Joe's emphasis on 'empirical facts' denies humanity. He shows a preference
for objects over people and so a dislike for illusions, not realising that
the whole of social structure is based on illusions -- they are 'fun'. Joe
wants it all 'perfectly clear' and is in that sense doomed in his struggle
for determining meaning since meaning includes lies and so 'fuzzyness';
random events can generate generations of 'meaning'!
As for you Robin, some of your comments seem to be made in a context that
favours 'facts' but are not identifiable as such (and so Joe comes charging
in!).
Before we try to touch on such subjects as 'the conscious universe' perhaps
we should all go and do some more reading re how we make our maps.
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
===============================================================
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 - 12:34:42 BST