Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution

From: Robin Faichney (robin@reborntechnology.co.uk)
Date: Tue Feb 06 2001 - 15:41:57 GMT

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA16349 (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 16:14:58 GMT
    Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:41:57 +0000
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
    Message-ID: <20010206154157.A984@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    References: <3A7F8B1C.26587.1D8F0B7@localhost>; <20010206131541.A550@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3A7FB3C4.15358.277C463@localhost>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Disposition: inline
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i
    In-Reply-To: <3A7FB3C4.15358.277C463@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 08:20:20AM -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 08:20:20AM -0600, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
    > On 6 Feb 2001, at 13:15, Robin Faichney wrote:
    >
    > > 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.)
    > >
    > You obviously are not subscribed to the online Journal of
    > Consciousness Studies. I suggest you remedy that.

    I'm not presently subscribed to that list, but I have been, for
    extended periods, during the last decade. Sperry's name hardly
    ever arose. I think you and he exaggerate his contribution.
    Perhaps you read him uncritically because you see him as an ally.
    Do you think he's "on the side of right"? :-)

    > And it IS
    > quite generally accepted; see Pribam, Fodor, Gazzaniga, LeDoux,
    > Neisser, Kagan, Zajonc, Izard, Damasio, Pinker, Koenig, Kosslyn,
    > Luria, Uttal, Stich, Edelman, Popper, Eccles, Changeau, Ornstein,
    > Kinsbourne, Varela, the list goes on and on and on...

    I wonder whether that list is intended to allow me to check for myself,
    or merely to impress me... Hmm, let's see, no titles, no dates...
    I wonder...

    The one title by one of these writers that I have immediately to hand
    is Ornstein's The Evolution of Consciousness. Well, that certainly
    seems relevant. We should surely get Ornstein's opinion about Sperry's
    contribution to consciousness studies here. But hold on -- that's strange
    -- the bibliography has nothing whatsoever by Sperry. According to the
    index he's mentioned twice, and on turning to these pages, I find that
    one mention specifically concerns the split-brain experiments, and the
    other says "But the work I did in the 1970's following Sperry's seminal
    work of the 1960's was just the beginning of the turn away from the
    'rational' single-brain idea". More split-brain stuff -- nothing about
    mind-body interaction, whatsoever.

    Now, if you were me, Joe, what would you think of the remainder of
    that list? Especially given your tendency to list all the writers you
    see as being on the "same side" on a broad philosophical issue, to support
    you on a particular point that few if any of them have directly addressed.

    I'm sorry, but I remain unconvinced.

    > > 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??
    > >
    > It isn't explanation, it's efficacy. Here's an analogy...

    I'm going to take what might seem rather a shocking step, here, and
    admit that I'll have to give this some thought before responding to it.

    -- 
    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 - 16:17:05 GMT