Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA00256 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:20:16 +0100 Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:57:46 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Message-ID: <20010329095746.A535@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3ABFDB23.30300.245DAA@localhost>; <20010327103522.D581@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3AC0CC5C.4426.37BBB8@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <3AC0CC5C.4426.37BBB8@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 05:22:36PM -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 05:22:36PM -0600, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2001, at 10:35, Robin Faichney wrote:
>
> > 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.
I'm sure they would, but so what? That's not evidence of top-down
causation either. These experiments are of great value, I'm sure, to
neurologists, but for our purposes, the fact that certain brain areas
light up on a scan when the subject's told what to do, is no better
evidence of mind-body interaction than if someone raised an arm when
you asked them to. And I don't remember anyone ever using that fact
as the basis of a great breakthrough in philosophy of mind.
> 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...
That's all absolutely irrelevant. You've obviously lost any philosophical
detachment you ever had on this. You're supposed to be a philosopher,
but you've forgotten one of philosophy's most commonly used tools:
playing the part of a radical skeptic is a perfectly valid method to
expose the flaws in an argument. The actual position of the person
playing the part is irrelevant. Any philosopher who hasn't "lost the
place" responds by directly addressing the points made about *their*
argument, regardless of the general plausibility of the skeptical stance.
And are you actually suggesting that no neural causal chain can exist
between the auditory nerve and the activated brain areas because the
chain actually goes through the self instead? Do you think that's
plausible? (Or even comprehensible?)
> 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.
You're virtually foaming at the mouth here. You really need to get some
distance from all this. Nobody is literally attacking your self, Joe!
:-)
-- 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 : Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:27:20 BST