Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA10166 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:15:43 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:18:00 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Message-ID: <3AC48788.4568.2BB51C@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010330110737.A1013@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3AC399DF.27798.88DBD7@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 08:23:59PM -0600 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 30 Mar 2001, at 11:07, Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 08:23:59PM -0600, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > On 29 Mar 2001, at 9:57, Robin Faichney wrote: > > > 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? > > > Well, it would
> mean that the expoerimenter's instruction to the > subject to access X
> capacity did not cause the subject to do so, > 'impingement of air
> pressure waves' notwithstanding.
>
> You miss the point, big time. You think a determinist would agree
> that you're free just because you do something other than you're
> told?[1] If that line of thinking is good enough for you, Joe, that's
> fine. As a common sense sort of attitude, it works -- even for me! On
> a *purely* pragmatic level, that is. Because it's not philosophy.
> And if you rely on this sort of argument in an academic context,
> you're heading for big trouble.
>
> [1] Just in case anyone here doesn't know and couldn't guess, a
> determinist would say the experience of freedom is an illusion, and
> doing other than you're told just involves a slightly more complex
> causal chain than doing exactly what you're told.
>
That's because determinists are true believers in the dogma of
freedom being maya, or illusion, and like other true believers who
believe that the self is maya or the world is maya, they will dismiss
or reject any and all evidence either of logical contradiction or of
empirical counterexample, no matter how conclusive or
voluminous, in order to cling to their cherished, treasured faith. All
determinists are, are theists who have converted their
preforeordaining deity into the law of (they steadfastly maintain)
universal cause and effect, which itself cannot explain the
appearance/disappearance, the popping into and out of existence,
of positron/electron pairs. Causality cannot reach outside of
existence to cause such pairs to appear from nonexistence, any
more than it can push them back into it. The statistical likelihood
of a pair appreaing and/or disappearing during any particular
duration in a particular volume of phase space is calculable, but
individual appearances/disappearances cannot be predicted. This
point, and others like it, does not matter to these dolts. They will
continue on with their ad ignorantium (argument from ignorance),
circular, question-begging and self-contradictory argument that until
we know the cause for X we cannot state that X does not have a
cause, until the cows stumble home and lay down to die. They
love to assume what they purport to prove, and argue that the fact
that a cause has not been found is proof that we haven't looked
hard enough or in the right way for a cause they passionately
assume must be there, while ignoring all the circularities,
contradictions and question-begging in their position which they
cannot logically answer.
>
> > > 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?)
> > >
> > Between the efferent and the afferent (perception and action) areas,
> > the information is indeed processed in the associative cortex, and
> > the physical (objective) analogue of the subjectively perceived self
> > would indeed be found flitting about in the dynamically recursive
> > pattern-configurations and elsewhere, such as in the raphe and
> > reticular actiating systems.
>
> So is that a causal chain or isn't it? (Please give your reasoning.)
>
No, it isn't, for causality is a linear thing. What is happening in the
associative cortex is complex and recursive, with both feedback
and feedforward, and cannot be considered causation by any
standardly accepted definition of the term except by those ignorant
of complexity theory (I recommend that you try enlightening
yourself on the subject by reading COMPLEXITY AND
POSTMODERNISM by Paul Cilliers, while knowing beforehand that
you won't).
>
> I'll take this opportunity to say that I won't be responding to any of
> the slew of posts you just generated, aimed at me, related to
> religion. (And I'm sure it was purely coincidental that that slew
> followed so closely on my statement to Vincent that I wouldn't be
> pursuing the religion thing.)
>
I got to that statement towards the bottom of my email, after I had
answered most of it.
> --
> 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 : Fri Mar 30 2001 - 20:18:21 BST