Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id IAA02725 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 5 Apr 2001 08:19:52 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:18:16 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Message-ID: <3ACB9DA8.29376.627230@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010403095313.A943@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3AC907FE.1718.307B17@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 11:15:10PM -0500 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 3 Apr 2001, at 9:53, Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 11:15:10PM -0500, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > On 2 Apr 2001, at 14:59, Robin Faichney wrote: > > > But in any
> case, this is not an example of what I call "vertical > > causation",
> and which I contend does not ever actually occur. > > ("Vertical"
> there refers to hierarchical organisation, and has nothing > > to do
> with sand pile slopes!) The 43.5 degree slope (I'm sure that > >
> figure must vary between different types of sand) is certainly a > >
> higher level feature than those of the individual grains, but the > >
> slope in itself exerts no effect on them. The movements and eventual
> > > disposition of each grain are affected only by those of the other
> > > grains with which it comes into contact (as well as gravity etc).
> We > > can measure the slope at the tipping point as 43.5 degrees, and
> the > > consistent precision of that figure might tempt us to think of
> it as > > specially significant -- and in a sense it is: it's quite
> fascinating > > that the features of the individual grains, when
> aggregated, come to > > this. But it is not causally effective. What
> is, is the relationship > > between each and every grain that is, or
> comes into, contact with each > > other. Which is why, as I say, the
> angle of the slope will vary with > > the features of the individual
> grains. It is just an overview, a > > simplification, of all the
> relationships between all the individual > > grains in the pile. > > >
> Briefly stopped back in. If the sand grains were spread out wide on >
> a table so that they were not heaped, the new grains falling would >
> act differently than they do when dropped upon a slope comprised > of
> many contiguous grains; this differential behavior is indeed > caused
> by the table grains being in a different configuration.
>
> You said it yourself: "If the sand grains were spread out wide..."
> What matters are the grains and the relationships between them (and
> the table, and gravity). The pile and its slope are just simplified
> overviews of the individual grains and their relationships.
> Obviously, the arrangement matters, but that (singular) arrangement is
> just our handle on the (extremely plural) grains and their
> relationships. No grain is affected in any way by the tipping point.
> What happens is, one grain is knocked into by another falling from
> above, transmits that force to the three upon which it sits, whereupon
> one of them, presently balanced a little precariously, is dislodged...
> The tipping point, from this point of view, is an epiphenomenon.
>
The tipping point is nevertheless real, for it is the general and
common explanation for the behavior of a myriad different sand
grains, and would not exist without a slope configuration, but does
in its presence. It goes that way with self-conscious awareness,
too. We have evolved to the point that we have ourselves become
determining nexuses (nexi?), and exert a degree of causative
control over ourselves and our environment. None of our decisions
contradict physical laws, or we cannot effectuate them (such as
leaping over tall buildings in a single bound), but when someone
decides to attend an anniversary dinner with their spouse six
months hence, it is not explainable by reference to molecules
colliding, and neither is it explainable by appealing to atomic
structure if he cancells it because in the succeeding months, they
got a divorce. Realizeable purpose, that is, efficient freedom of will,
unquestionably exists at the level in which we operate, and is the
only available framework for explaining our behavior. In fact, there
is no such thing as meaning on the molecular level; no one could
noncontradictorally attempt to explain the being of the world
without reference to meaning, because explanation itself involves
meaning. There could exist no such thing as meaning in a
superdfetermined world, nor could there have been any reason for
our self-conscious awarenesses to have evolved without the ability
to reflect not conferring someevolutionary advantage, which it
certainly wouldn't if (and this is the absurd consequence of
superdeterminism) every motion of all our bodies was indelibly
written on ths parchment of the universe one nanosecond after the
Big Bang.
> --
> 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 : Thu Apr 05 2001 - 08:28:42 BST