Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA05441 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:41:59 +0100 Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:35:22 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Message-ID: <20010327103522.D581@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3ABFDB23.30300.245DAA@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <3ABFDB23.30300.245DAA@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 12:13:23AM -0600 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 12:13:23AM -0600, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > >
> > 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...
>
> I don't doubt correlation between mental and neural events. In fact,
> I insist on it. But how can mental-> neural causation be objectively
> verified, when only the effects, and not the causes, are objectively
> accessible?
> >
> A = someone testifying that, pursuant to request, they are pursuing X
> cognitive task.
> B = Appropriate area Y of this someone's brain, associated with the
> performance of cognitive task X, lighting up in real time as marker
> glucose is burned there.
> >
> If A, then B. If not A, then not B. Repeat ad nauseum ad infinitum.
> Still, if A, then B, and if not A, then not B. No exceptions noted
> (they would make great career-making headlines if they were).
> Overwhelmingly statistically probable scientifically induced
> conclusion: A causes B.
> Inductive conclusion: the voluntary pursuit of cognitive task X
> causes approriate brain area Y to engage, valid over many different
> X's and Y's, and prohibitively corroborated by means of extensively
> repeated experimental trials under carefully controlled conditions -
> the marrow of science.
A skeptic would say there's nothing to rule out a complete causal
explanation at the neural level from impingement of air pressure waves
("instructions as to what to think about") on the subject's eardrums to
excitation of specific neural areas as observed. No hypothetical "will"
or "self" need be involved.
Personally, I believe in the self and the will as useful concepts in many
contexts, but you'd never convince a real skeptic using this evidence.
Objectively conclusive it ain't.
-- Robin Faichney Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)=============================================================== 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 Mar 27 2001 - 10:53:47 BST