Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA09294 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 28 Mar 2001 00:19:43 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 17:22:36 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Message-ID: <3AC0CC5C.4426.37BBB8@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010327103522.D581@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3ABFDB23.30300.245DAA@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 12:13:23AM -0600 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 27 Mar 2001, at 10:35, Robin Faichney wrote:
> 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.
>
I'm sure that if a subject answers, no, I decided to think about X
instead of read Y, that the appropriate components would light up
on the scan. And the self is not hypothetical, but apodictically self-
evident on the most basic phenomenological and existential level;
for a self such as you to deny the existence of a self, and of
yourself by existential instantiation, is to ensnarl yourself in the
same types of irretrieveable self-contradictions in which you have
mired yourself beaucoup times before here; akin to people arguing
against free will as if such arguments could carry any weight, since
they would thus be the inevitable consequence of the big bang
puppeteering palates and could not even be intended by their
utterer, or for people to attempt to argue that they knew nothing, all
the while utilizing a language which they knew how to use.
>
> 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.
>
Some real obtuse skeptics embrace solipsism, and are really
logically incoherent to do so.
Some real hidebound skeptics regard all religious views as an
unfortunate virulent and destructive mental infection communicated
ceselessly by poor wretched memetically enthralled mind zombies.
Some real bizarre skeptics will deny a
99.9999999999999999999999999999999% statistical probability,
clinging to the forlorn straw of the bare theoretical necessity of
provisionality (science) to reject it while embracing all kinds of
nonsensical folderol because the religion to which they belong
which cretinously asserts it does so with dogmatically absolute
certitude. Which kind of skeptic are you? Objectively conclusive
the evidence is to a high degree of statistical probability; 100% it
isn't. Why? Because it's science, and it ain't 'gospel truth'
religious dogma, like the Zen Doctrine of No-Mind, when
fundamentalistically misinterpreted.
> --
> 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 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 : Wed Mar 28 2001 - 00:22:17 BST