Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA14655 (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 13:36:06 GMT Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:15:41 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Message-ID: <20010206131541.A550@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3A7F16D4.836.12A542@localhost>; <20010206093644.D557@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3A7F8B1C.26587.1D8F0B7@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i In-Reply-To: <3A7F8B1C.26587.1D8F0B7@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 05:26:52AM -0600 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 05:26:52AM -0600, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2001, at 9:36, Robin Faichney wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 09:10:44PM -0600, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > > In fact, > a major focus of Roger Sperry's work was how recursion in
> > > systems possessing the prerequisite complexity, such as our >
> > cerebral cortexes, were capable of, and indeed utilized, top-down >
> > control (in addition to the bottom-up control which remains).
> >
> > I don't understand this. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that
> > I don't believe that causation can cross levels of explanation -- in
> > either direction. Perhaps you could tell us more about it.
> >
> To quote from SCIENCE AND MORAL PRIORITY by Nobel
> laureate Roger Sperry (the author of the famous 'split-brain'
> experiments and the father of emergent materialism and the
> cognitive revolution in neuroscience):
What was his Nobel granted for?
> My long-trusted materialist logic was first shaken in the spring
> of 1964 in preparing a nontechnical lecture on brain evolution in
> which i was extending the concept of emergent control of higher
> over lower forces in nested hierarchies to include the mind-brain
> relation. I found myself concluding with the then awkward notion
<snip>
> occur was almost explosive in the cognitive disciplines. The
> movement has already been referred to as the "cognitivist
> revolution" and also variously as the "humanist", "consciousness",
> or "third" revolution, and has extended also into philosophy,
> anthropology, and neuroscience.
>
> And you were unaware of all this, Robin? Tsk, tsk...
I'm very well aware of the "third" revolution. Which is why I know
it has been nowhere near as successful as Sperry suggests here. Yes,
consciousness is now a respectable subject to study. But if Sperry's
model of mind/body interaction is so good, why is it not generally
accepted within the field of consciousness studies? (I'd go so far
as to suggest that it's not even well known.)
And what is Sperry's model, anyway? I won't have time to visit the
university library within the next few days, but I'm sure you understand
it well enough to summarise it in a paragraph or two. In particular,
even if you do nothing else, I'd be extremely grateful for a few words
on how any causal explanation can cross levels of explanation??
-- 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 : Tue Feb 06 2001 - 13:40:46 GMT