Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA18585 (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 21:17:35 GMT From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:21:08 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Message-ID: <3A801664.24504.3F9151C@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010206202636.A1517@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3A7FDD53.21676.31A231A@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:17:39AM -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 20:26, Robin Faichney wrote:
> 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.
>
I have devoted years of critical examination towards arriving at my
positions (which I continually refine) on the issues; I ceaselessly
subject all positions I consider, including my own, to the same
ruthless critical appraisal to which I have subjected yours. If you
harbor an emotional attachment to your stance which causes you
to engage in puerile ad hominems in defence of it, I would suggest
it is not myself who is in need of maturation. What one should not
transcend is a position which the vast predominance of
contemporary scientific evidence supports, just to do so. You are
steadfastly hanging on to your position although it enjoys much
less scientific corroboration than mine possesses, if what you have
offered here to justify it is any indication.
>
> > > > 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".
>
They differ on certain specifics, but agree on the general model.
But you, not having read them, are of course free to doubt same.
Sometimes I guess ignorance IS bliss for some of us.
>
> > 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.
>
That is the conclusion supported by the quoted evidence I
presented on list. I sincerely doubt that Ornstein has written two
distinct books both titled THE PSYCHOLOGY OF
CONSCIOUSNESS.
>
> 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.
>
It is highly doubtful that the indexes of BOTH books would have two
references to Sperry on the same pages, and no others; what
would you bet are the chances of that? However, I'll go specifically
to addall.com and buy the other book to compare, if I can find it
new or used; if it is the same book (which statistically would be
overwhelmingly likely), my points stand.
>
> 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?
>
I doubt that you would want to admit either that the books are the
same, or that the references aren't, anyway. There's not much
credibility wiggle room for you between the horns of that dilemma.
> --
> 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 - 21:19:33 GMT