Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA15341 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 1 Apr 2001 15:11:03 +0100 Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 14:57:08 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Message-ID: <20010401145708.A1121@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3AC600AA.16997.3264CA@localhost>; <20010401101659.A973@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3AC6BA79.22669.2D165BE@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <3AC6BA79.22669.2D165BE@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 05:19:53AM -0500 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 05:19:53AM -0500, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On 1 Apr 2001, at 10:16, Robin Faichney wrote:
> > However, my main point survives, because it concerns not the
> > determination of neural events by other neural events, but the
> > determination of subjective events (experience) by objective events.
> > Not that I'm saying that happens! In fact, I say very clearly that it
> > does not. My point, all along, in questioning your account, is to see
> > if you can explain why it does not. Because I can. See below.
> >
> Objective events are incompletely represented by subjective
> events; however, whatever the objective source may be, it must be
> such that, when presented to our perceptual apparati, our
> subjective experience results; in that sense, the part (our
> subjective experience, the thing-for-us) cannot contradict the whole
> (the objective situation/process, the thing-in-itself).
Sorry. I though it was obvious I was talking about the relationship
between subjective events and the neural events with which they are
correlated. My main point is that it makes most sense to recognise such
correlation, but not mistake it for causation. I believe that your view
is inconsistent, denying that subjective events are determined by neural
events, but insisting on "top-down" causation whereby neural events are
caused by subjective events (willpower). My view is that causation is
equally invalid in both directions, because the correlated neural and
subjective events are different aspects of the *same* phenomena.
The following para might now make more sense to you:
> > You talk about about top-down causation, as if that implied
> > subjective-> objective (willpower->neural effects) causation, but (a)
> > that implies bottom-up determination of experience by neural events
> > (as we sense whatever it is we are about to act on), (b) it flies in
> > the face of your denial of causation within complex systems, and (c)
> > you have given no clue as to how it could actually work.
<snip>
> > I am not a determinist, but my answer to the
> > fact that, at least at the cellular level, every event in brain is
> > physically determined, differs from yours, and now that I've managed
> > to get you to actually explain yourself, my position is clearly
> > superior.
> >
> I'm happy for you that you think so. I am also intrigued by the way
> you have arranged to change your position whilst maintaining that it
> was never really your all along. It will be interesting to discover if
> this device will apply to more of your positions.
As long as you fail to see that people can, and very often do, present
arguments with which they do not particularly identify, you will continue
to be bemused.
In connection with the views with which I do apparently identify, on
the self, none of the views on *any* subject that emanate from this
direction are identified with 100%. All is and will remain provisional.
Of course, for the sake of convenience, and also out of sheer habit,
appearances will often incline otherwise.
> > What it is, if you're interested, you can read at
> > http://www.ii01.org/causation.html This is quite rough at present,
> > cobbled together from various writings over the years, repetitive and
> > incomplete, but I think it presents my case at least as well as you've
> > presented yours here.
> >
> I'm leaving for a week at a condo within the day, but I have
> bookmarked your site and printed out your essay, and will get back
> to you on it.
I feel appropriately honoured, and await your response with breath bated!
-- 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 : Sun Apr 01 2001 - 15:13:43 BST