Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA18357 (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 20:53:22 GMT Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 20:26:36 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Message-ID: <20010206202636.A1517@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3A7FB3C4.15358.277C463@localhost>; <20010206154157.A984@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3A7FDD53.21676.31A231A@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i In-Reply-To: <3A7FDD53.21676.31A231A@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:17:39AM -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 11:17:39AM -0600, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2001, at 15:41, Robin Faichney wrote:
>
> > I think you and [Sperry] exaggerate [Sperry's] 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.
If you see one set of protagonists as "good" and another as "bad",
it is absolutely inevitable that you will be uncritical of the former
and maintain a closed mind towards the latter. That is the function of
such labelling, and the reason why academics generally and scientists
in particular try to avoid it. You have to transcend all that personal
garbage. The only way to understand anyone's contribution is to see
what they see in it, appreciate the points they're trying to make.
Which you're guaranteed never to do as long as you think they're on the
"wrong side". Stop playing cops and robbers, and grow up.
> > > 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),
All of these specifically mention and entirely concur with Sperry's
version of interactionism? Or maybe you're just proving my point, that
at such times you just list all the writers (and, in this case, titles)
you see as being "on your side".
> 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:
<snip>
> 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."
<snip>
> 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.
Maybe it's just as well I'm taking some time out. You obviously need
time to calm down. Anyone in their right mind would have concluded
we're looking at different books. Instead of which you first suggest
maybe I don't really have the book -- despite my quote from it -- then
say I "intentionally misrepresented the content of Ornstein's book to
the list". That is not the assumption of a reasonable person.
In your list above you mention Ornstein's Psychology of Consciousness, but
not his Evolution of Consciousness, which is what I referred to. It seems
safe to assume you're looking at the former. How does that make you
feel, Joe? And to think, just a few deep breaths, with a determination
to remain level-headed, and a marginally more careful reading of what I
wrote, and you could have avoided looking so silly.
When I come back after my few days off I don't think I'll be exchanging
much with you, unless I see you taking a more measured and rational
approach. I mean, if you see me as one of the "baddies", then there's
really no point in trying to communicate with you, is there?
-- 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 - 20:57:37 GMT