Re: The Demise of a Meme

From: Scott Chase (ecphoric@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Mar 26 2001 - 05:45:19 BST

  • Next message: Gatherer, D. (Derek): "RE: The Demise of a Meme"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id FAA00244 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 26 Mar 2001 05:48:55 +0100
    X-Originating-IP: [24.26.114.9]
    From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme
    Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 23:45:19 -0500
    Content-Type: text/html
    Message-ID: <F198nEMzAUor03u9PH3000008b6@hotmail.com>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2001 04:45:20.0239 (UTC) FILETIME=[8FC5E7F0:01C0B5AF]
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    



    >From:
    >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    >Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme
    >Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 11:16:51 -0600
    >
    >On 25 Mar 2001, at 10:48, Robin Faichney wrote:
    >
    > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 03:41:03PM -0600, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
    > > > On 24 Mar 2001, at 15:04, Robin Faichney wrote: > > > Your idea of
    > > the self is quite well-defined, Joe -- as well-defined as > > it can
    > > be, I think. But do you think that, when they use the word, > >
    > > everyone else always means the same by it? > > > I can't think of a
    > > single word that means the exact same thing to all > who use it.
    > >
    > > And you don't think you should allow for such equivocation when you
    > > make statements about "the self"? If the word has different meanings,
    > > surely statements made using it have variable truth values?
    > >
    >Given the meaning which I explicitly and definitionally attached to
    >the word "self", the truth value of my statements concening same
    >is a matter of scientific verification. There IS voluminous and
    >comprehensive PET-scan verified evidence of top-down control, and
    >there ARE measureable long-term changes engendered by
    >education or conditioning, via the myelinization of neural pathways
    >stimulated by the MAP-2 protein which is produced when a
    >pathway is continuously used, as a result of the increased
    >electrical stimulation of it. The self, and self-conscious awareness
    >of it, as defined by me, indubitably DOES exist, and anyone who
    >disputes same is by necessity being self-contradictory, in both
    >senses of the term. Your pitiful and pathetic attempt at linguistic
    >sophistry receives from me the attention it deserves, which is not
    >much.
    >
    1. Though P.E.T. is somewhat of a top-down approach (excepting that one is focusing on the metabolism of  a molecule in isotopic form, such as glucose, allowing for its detection and indexing of activity), how does P.E.T. slend support to a holistic or top-down or emergent model of mindbrain action? Any journal articles? Would one be able to read one of these articles and  see a statement like: "Ladies and gentlemen...we have demonstrated existence of the self."? Or would it merely be grokked from the overall jist?
     
    2. Is MAP-2 solely involved in myelinization?
     
    3. What's the operational definition of the self used and how does this putative entity explicitly relate to P.E.T. methodology and/or myelinization? How does P.E.T. evidence lend support to the self concept and what are the molecular mechanims in myelinization which supposedly link up to conditioning and education (involving MAP-2 or other components)?
     


    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

    =============================================================== 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://cfpm.org/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 26 2001 - 05:51:24 BST