Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA14547 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:29:16 GMT From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 07:32:49 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Soul and Self Message-ID: <3A7FA8A1.9308.24C44FA@localhost> References: <3A7F9D39.30053.21FB508@localhost> In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10102061834490.20443-100000@sushrut.sgpgi.ac.in> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 6 Feb 2001, at 18:37, Dr Able Lawrence wrote:
>
> Absolutely
>
> In complex systems, system behaviour can be treanscendantal and cannot
> be explained entirely by the properties of its basic constituents as
> any one from Computer Science would testify.
>
> For example can properties of Silicon explain theaesthetics of a Nivel
> writtten on a word processor in a computer made of Silicon. Looking
> for evidence of mind in neurons is like looking for novel in Silicon!!
>
Yepperz.
The whole is more than the sum of its parts; it is also constituted
by the synergy of their interrelations. However, the widespread
religious belief in a soul has resulted at least partially from the
misgeneralization of the principle of the conservation of quantities,
where pattern and configuration do not matter, to its misapplication
as a conservation of qualities, where they do. When the neural
configuration and dynamic patterns disintegrate, so does the
emergent self they support. The idea, self-contradicorally held by
some selves, that there cannot be such an entity as a dynamically
recursive and complex-configuration grounded emergent materially-
based self seems to me to be, at least in part, an unfortunate
overcompensation for this dogmatic error, erring in the opposite
direction. As I have said before, when Buddha looked at each of
the individual skandas and proclaimed that he could not find a self,
this was an error akin to tearing down a wall, then claiming that
one cannot find it in any of the bricks. Claiming that the self is
nothing is fundamentalist buddhist literal-mindedness; seeing that
the self is instead no-thing, that is, not a thing since it is not static
and fixed into a definite being like a rock, but dynamically
becomes, is to allow the metaphor to point beyond itself instead of
to erroneously take it literally.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > I see no evidence for a transcendantly based, immortal soul
> > that survives physical death, but there is plenty of evidence for an
> > immanent, mortal, brain-based, emergent self (implied by the term
> > 'self-consciousness') which cannot survive separate from its
> > generating physical substrate.
> >
> > =============================================================== 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
> >
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dr Able Lawrence MD
> Senior Resident
> Clinical Immunology
> SGPGIMS, Lucknow
> able@sgpgi.ac.in
> Ph +91 98390 70247
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Tue Feb 06 2001 - 13:31:14 GMT