Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA02028 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 4 Oct 2000 17:30:30 +0100 Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 17:23:46 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: the conscious universe Message-ID: <20001004172346.C10495@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A6B@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A6B@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 01:55:04PM +0100 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 01:55:04PM +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> Consciousness resides, as I think Joe
> has already said, in the neurological tissue of the body, principally, but
> not necessarily exclusively in the brain.
Only in philosophy does a rank outsider think he's perfectly entitled
to stand up and spout off without having bothered to take one class or
read one book -- or one paper -- in the relevant area.
I just wrote a couple of paragraphs, then deleted them. I'm tired of
this. If you're so keen to stick with your current views, why should I
bother?
My last word on this subject: IF you're really interested in consciousness
for its own sake, rather than just as a tool to bash what you view as
non-rationality, then get Max Velmans' book Understanding Consciousness.
His views are not as close to mine as I first thought, but I agree with
the quote on the cover saying it is "an exceptionally lucid and balanced
account of the different approaches to and aspects of the problem".
(Prof Jeffrey Gray, Institute of Psychiatry, London) In particular, he
appreciates that subjective phenomena cannot be investigated objectively.
And, of course, only objective phenomena can be located in time and space.
When you've read that, or, for that matter, any other recent book in
the same area, I'll be interested to hear what you think about it.
> >I just coined a new internet acronym, to join the ranks of BTW,
> IIRC
> >and RTFM -- DBFS. See if you can guess what it means. (Hint: it
> has
> >more in common with RTFM than the fact they're both FLA's (four
> letter
> >acronyms).)
>
> It's quite interesting that someone who on pain of death avoids
> clarification or adequate definition of terms they use in wildly different
> ways from established understanding of those terms, is able to find time to
> make up abusive internet acronyms. It's a mark of intellectual and
> psychological inadequacy and insecurity.
That paragraph is more seriously abusive than anything I've written.
I don't know why you felt it appropriate to react that way, and I'm not
going to speculate. Bye for now.
-- 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 : Wed Oct 04 2000 - 17:35:00 BST