Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA15586 (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 15:12:10 GMT From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:15:38 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Soul and Self Message-ID: <3A7FC0BA.27220.2AA69B5@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010206135741.B757@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10102061834490.20443-100000@sushrut.sgpgi.ac.in>; from able@sgpgi.ac.in on Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 06:37:44PM +0530 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 13:57, Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 06:37:44PM +0530, 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.
>
> Depends what you mean by "entirely explain". Detailed prediction is
> not possible, but modelling of likely scenarios is. (MSc IT, with
> experience of systems dynamics modelling)
>
> > 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!!
>
> True. And looking for top-down mind->body causation is like looking
> for software control over hardware! In practice we do very well by
> assuming it happens, but on analysis the distinction is "all in the
> mind", and it's hardware all the way down/up. Which is not to say the
> latter view is "the correct" one. What is best depends on what one is
> trying to achieve at the time. Of course those who are neurotically
> driven to find ultimate answers to cling to will never accept that.
> I'm only glad we have nobody like that here!
>
The synapses and neurons correspond to hardware, the
electrochemical patterns coursing along them correspond to
software in use - very roughly. The difference is that software and
hardware in computers have a hard time effectuating lasting
changes in each other's basic potentialities/possibilities; not so
with their rough analogues in humans. They can - and do - affect
each other in ways ranging from fleeting to permanent, and
everywhere in between. And unlike computers, they can actually
TRY to do so.
>
> --
> 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 : Tue Feb 06 2001 - 15:14:10 GMT