Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA05472 (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 14:47:41 GMT Message-Id: <200101191445.JAA27762@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:50:49 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia? In-reply-to: <20010119125153.B1745@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <200101191157.GAA03604@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 05:40:42AM -0600 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Date sent: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:51:53 +0000
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia?
From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
Send 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.
>
I never said it was; I ALWAYS maintained that it was dynamic
rather than static, evolving rather than stagnating, complex rather
than simple, and recursive rather than flat. That does not affect the
fact that selves ARE, it just further posits that the nature of their
existence is a becoming existence, not a being existence.
>
> > > > > > 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.
>
Then there we agree.
>
> > > > 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?"
>
Well, if you're interested in the informational relation to physics, I
recommend PHYSICS FROM FISHER INFORMATION: A
UNIFICATION by B. Roy Friedan (Cambridge U Pr 1999). There
are many different levels to be passed between the quantum and
the cognitive; at each level, new properties emerge. A single
theory would have the same problems as physics and chemistry,
only more so; if it covers the foundation completely, it gets lost
when it moves up levels of complexity, but if it issues from there, it
cannot treat the foundations in a fine-grained manner.
> --
> 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 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 - 14:49:23 GMT