Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA16816 (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 17:14:09 GMT From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:17:39 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Message-ID: <3A7FDD53.21676.31A231A@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010206154157.A984@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3A7FB3C4.15358.277C463@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 08:20:20AM -0600 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 15:41, Robin Faichney wrote:
> 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"? :-)
>
I think he is more correct than eliminative materialists and black-
box behaviorists. I think that is the general consensus of the
cognitive community.
>
> > And it IS
> > quite generally accepted; see Pribam (LANGUAGES OF THE
BRAIN), Fodor (REPRESENTATIONS, PSYCHOSEMANTICS, A
THEORY OF CONTENT AND OTHER ESSAYS), Gazzaniga (MIND
MATTERS, NATURE'S MIND), LeDoux (THE INTEGRATED MIND),
Neisser (COGNITION AND REALITY), Kagan, Zajonc & Izard
(EMOTIONS, COGNITION AND BEHAVIOR), Damasio (DESCARTE'S
ERROR, THE FEELING OF WHAT HAPPENS), Pinker (THE
LANGUAGE INSTINCT, HOW THE MIND WORKS), Koenig & Kosslyn
(WET MIND), Luria (COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT, THE WORKING BRAIN), Uttal (THE PSYCHOBIOLOGY OF MIND), Stich (INNATE IDEAS, FROM FOLK PSYCHOLOGY TO COGNITIVE SCIENCE),
Edelman (his trilogy, BRIGHT AIR, BRILLIANT FIRE, A UNIVERSE
OF CONSCIOUSNESS), Popper & Eccles (THE SELF AND ITS
BRAIN), Changeau (NEURONAL MAN), Ornstein (THE PSYCHOLOGY
OF CONSCIOUSNESS), Kinsbourne (ASYMMETRICAL
FUNCTION OF THE BRAIN), Varela (AUTOPOESIS AND
COGNITION, THE PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGICAL AUTONOMY),
the list goes on and on and on...but my work for you doesn't. Next
you'll be wanting me to transcribe lengthy sections from them like I
did with Sperry. Nuh-uh; do some of your own work.
>
> 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...
>
See above and use amazon or your library.
>
> 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.
>
Hokay, I'll quote Ornstein out of that book just to show everyone
what you should already know if you indeed have the book. On
page 52 it states:
Some researchers have even argued that consciousness
depends *solely* on the output of the brain, no matter what the
input is that keys off a given output. Roger Sperry has emphasized
this point, and after him Leon Festinger and his associates have
provided some experimental demonstrations of this idea [note
follows: this theoretical approach is sometimes difficult to follow.
Roger Sperry, "Neurology and the Mind-Brain Problem,"
AMERICAN SCIENTIST, 40 (1951) 291-312, IS QUITE A CLEAR
STATEMENT; and Leon Festinger, H. Ono, C. A. Burnham, and D,
Bamber, "Efference and the Conscious Experience of Perception,"
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 74 (1967), 1-36,
is clear and contains several interesting experiments.]. Their
contention, that awareness depends solely on output regardless of
input, is consistent with Bruner's contention that the category
activated will determine awareness.
>
On page 72, Sperry's research is referred to as "intriguing" and it is
mentioned that his colleagues were Bogen and Gazzaniga (another
name on my list; I should've mentioned bogen and Jerome Bruner,
but there are so many, I can't be expected to list EVERYbody). A.
R. Luria, another person I named is listed on the previous page. Of
COURSE this section would be devoted to the split-brain
experiments for which Sperry won his Nobel; it is, after all, titled
"Two Sides of the Brain." What you neglected to mention,
however, was the title of the other chapter in which Sperry is cited;
"'Ordinary' Consciousness: A Personal Construction."
>
> 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.
>
I doubt if being frozen in a block of ice would convince you that cold
existed if you thought Buddha or Blackmore were against it, but
the larger issue is how I've conclusively shown, with direct
paginated quotes, how you intentionally misrepresented the
content of Ornstein's book to the list. It's shot your credibility all to
hell and back for me, Robin. I doubt if you have read any of the
rest of these people; I own and have read every book I've listed.
Now we can all see why you are continually demanding evidence
but never providing it; you prefer for others to dig for you. C'mon,
Robin; let's have some pithy, annotated quotes from YOUR
authoritues - and by the way; who are they? I don't think you've
ever mentioned the names of any, much less actually quoted them,
outside of Buddha, blackmore and a sideswipe at Dennett (who is
himself an odd sort of emergent materialist, due to his long debate
with Jerry Fodor (also on my list) of whom he has said that upon
talking to him, frequently "scales fell from my eyes (Dennett's big
problem is his denial of mental representation, when experiments,
cited by Fodor, have even measured how rapidly subjects can
rotate a mental cube (PS - dig 'em out yourself)).
>
> > > 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.
>
That would be nice.
> --
> 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 - 17:16:08 GMT