Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA17020 (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 17:34:07 GMT From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:37:23 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Message-ID: <3A7FE1F3.1663.32C355F@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010206155528.B984@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3A7FAE80.29525.263345D@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 07:57:52AM -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 15:55, Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 07:57:52AM -0600, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > > > > I wasn't aware that free will showed up on PET scans. > > >
> When an area of the brain is used more, it burns more of the >
> isotopic sugar injected into the subject, and the isotopes are >
> released. These isotopes, and the locations from where they are >
> released, DO show up on the PET scans, and conclusively > demonstrate
> that the areas of the brain which are activated are to a > significant
> degree a matter of conscious choice.
>
> Where, exactly, is the conclusive evidence of the involvement
> of consciousness?
>
When the subjects are asleep, and thus not conscious, the areas
involved (perception, memory, and so on) show little activity, or
only sporadic bursts very well correlated with the advent of REM
sleep (hence dreams). At the same time, when A and B occur
hundreds of times together and are not noted to occur apart (such
as a request to use nonlinguistic auditory perception correlating
with one part of the brain lighting up, and linguistic auditory
perception correlating with another, and nontext visual perception
with a third, and text-reading visual perception with a fourth, and
memory with a fifth, and so on, and the subjects can direct those
areas to light up on the PET scan at will (like BIOFEEDBACK,
Robin)), it is reasonable to conclude by any scientific model you
care to name that such a high statistical correlation entails the
high-confidence likelihood that the subjects are indeed succeeding
in doing what they are trying to do; selectively access certain parts
of their brains which operate on the contents and forms requested,
and this involves both conscious self-awareness and efficacious
volition.
>
> > Or how do you
> > THINK they do all those PET scan memory, perception, etc.
> > studies? By asking their subjects to think, perceive, etc., and
> > guess what? They can choose to do so and have it demonstrably
> > happen. This research has been going on for over a DECADE, Robin;
> > where have you been?
>
> Right here. I know about these experiments. I just don't understand
> how you get objective evidence of consciousness out of them.
>
By correlating subject reports and task performance with PET scan
patterns; it's vanishingly simple. THEY"RE not looking at the
screen; they're just choosing what to do with their own minds - and
it SHOWS!
>
> > > And would you say that the strengthening and myelinization of
> > > pathways enhances or diminishes freedom of the will???
> > >
> > It shows that if one perseveres, one can change one's own mind in
> > desired directions not just in the short term, but also in the long
> > term, or what's a college education for?
>
> That I CAN change, in the direction I want to, is one of my most
> cherished beliefs. But that is a different realm of discourse, a
> different language game, from the details of neural mechanics. Which
> is why I have no difficulty in viewing the latter as entirely
> deterministic. If only we can recognise the profound importance of
> context, due to which our concepts change their significance from one
> area of application to another, then we can have all the
> self-determination we want, without having to believe in such chimera
> as top-down (or bottom-up) causation.
>
Sorry, Robin, but when the evidence comes in by the reams, as it
has over the last decade and a half, at some point it is an exercise
in willful denial to close one's mind to it. Of course, you have free
will, and can do that. I choose not to, because I actually want
answers, and that means I must consider the evidence, and not let
whether I like it or not (even though I do) influence my perusal.
> --
> 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 - 17:36:07 GMT