Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia?

From: Robin Faichney (robin@reborntechnology.co.uk)
Date: Fri Jan 19 2001 - 12:51:53 GMT

  • Next message: Aaron Agassi: "Re: Now They're Singing a Different Song"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA04796 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:20:47 GMT
    Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:51:53 +0000
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia?
    Message-ID: <20010119125153.B1745@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    References: <200101182005.PAA02168@mail4.lig.bellsouth.net>; <20010119104109.E509@reborntechnology.co.uk> <200101191157.GAA03604@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Disposition: inline
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i
    In-Reply-To: <200101191157.GAA03604@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 05:40:42AM -0600
    From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 05:40:42AM -0600, Joe E. Dees wrote:
    > >
    > It's gratifying to see that you are coming to see the light that
    > eastern sages saw long before you; that when they said that the
    > self was nothing, they meant no-thing, i.e. not a fixed and static
    > being or thing, like a rock or a tree, but rather a dynamically and
    > complexly recursive becoming.

    I'm glad you're coming around to the realization that the self is not
    a concrete thing.

    > > > > > There should be no confusion between the molecular
    > > > > > significance we can grant to the structure of a material (or an
    > > > > > energy) and the communicational significance we impose upon
    > > > > > certain configurations or patterns of one substance or another.
    > > > > > There isn't with me.
    > > > >
    > > > > Nor with me. Why do you think there is?
    > > > >
    > > > The answer was in reference to the second quote, which you
    > > > snipped, about the difference between the information contained in
    > > > the writing on the paper and the information contained in the
    > > > structure of the paper, which Dennett urged his colleagues not to
    > > > consider at that time.
    > >
    > > Why do you think that to consider the relationship between these two
    > > types of information is to confuse them?
    > >
    > I'm glad to hear you don't. They also are not the same type of
    > information...

    That's what I said. Just there, and many times before.

    > > > Mind is composed of matter/energy configured in sufficiently
    > > > complex, dynamic and recursive patterns to permit it to breach the
    > > > Godelian barrier and impose meaning. There; I've done it for you.
    > >
    > > I'm sorry. Maybe I'm too stupid to understand, but I'm sure someone
    > > around would benefit, if you just say a little more about how that
    > > statement proves correct the supposition "that some concept of
    > > _information_ could serve eventually to unify mind, matter, and meaning
    > > in a single theory."
    > >
    > What is critical is the complexity of the patterning of the
    > matter/energy substrate; when the number of components and their
    > interconnections achieve sufficient interrelational complexity to
    > permit self-reference, mind emerges. A sufficient quantity does
    > lead to the emergence of new qualities. A single grain of sand, or
    > ten, possesses no tipping plane, but millions of grains in a pile will
    > form an angle from the horizontal of no more than 43 1/2 degrees
    > (the angle of the pyramids, BTW). If more sand is added to the
    > top, avalanches widen the base to re-establish the angle. This
    > property is only possessed by a sufficiently large aggregate. Mind
    > is like that. A single neuron cannot be self-aware, or a million of
    > them apparently, but equally apparently three trillion of them can
    > be and are in each human case (except perhaps in Chris Lofting's
    > :).

    It's nice to know you have an interest in the pyramids, Joe. But how
    does the foregoing prove (or disprove) "that some concept of _information_
    could serve eventually to unify mind, matter, and meaning in a single
    theory?"

    -- 
    Robin Faichney
    robin@reborntechnology.co.uk
    

    =============================================================== 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 : Fri Jan 19 2001 - 13:24:28 GMT