Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA17422 (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 18:55:59 GMT From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:59:32 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Message-ID: <3A7FF534.14219.3776DAD@localhost> In-reply-to: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMACEKKCAAA.debivort@umd5.umd.edu> References: <3A7FE1F3.1663.32C355F@localhost> 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 12:39, Lawrence DeBivort wrote:
> A point of clarification, Joe,
>
> <snip>
>
> Joe Dees:
> (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.
>
> <snip>
>
> Lawrence de Bivort:
> Agreeing with the correlation between cognitive tasks (visual,
> linguisitic, non-linguistic auditory, etc.,)and brain area activity,
> we still cannot (nor perhaps need to say) that the subject is
> consciously or deliberately activating a specific part of their brain:
> rather, they are consciously selecting only a cognitive task, whose
> performance is/happens to be carried out by a specific part of the
> brain. I make this observation because we 'use' our brains without
> much awareness of what our brains are doing to enable their use.
> Brains get a high-level command (see this, read that) and then
> execute, without meta-feedback to the subject. In my view, this
> automaticity of the brain's response has a lot to do with our
> perception (or lack or perception) of how memes are 'accepted', of
> 'free will' and choice, etc.
>
> And it presents a wonderful image of a person's brain trying to
> generate a meta-understanding of how that highly automated brain
> works; the thing that gives us consciouness itself operates without
> directly giving us the information with which to understand the
> processes of that consciousness. Yet we tackle the job persistently,
> with argumentation, logic, PET scans, stimulus probes, head trauma
> studies, etc. We can applaud this persistence... There is something so
> very human about it.
>
It is one of the grand endeavors. But it does not matter
geographically where in the head the memory stores are, or the
vision, or the linguistic audition for it to be said that a person
intentionally activates the areas they select. When someone tries
to remember something, even if they have never heard the words
"temporal lobe", it will nevertheless light up. We learn through
doing, and having learned, we know how. We have control over
voluntary access to those areas without many of us being aware of
their specific locations, because we know through experience how
to set our mental feet on the paths. And we do get feedback; the
registration of the meanings of the words to which we are
attending, the sought memory, etc. But it is also true that a
recursive system such as our brain, while being consciously self-
aware, can never achieve experiential self-transparency. The
snake of self-consciousness must bite its own tail, but it can never
swallow its own jaws. Just like other Godelian recursions, ours is
by necessity both present and incomplete, while self-
consciousness inheres.
>
> - Lawrence
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 - 18:58:01 GMT