Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA16558 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:49:29 +0100 Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:39:11 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Message-ID: <20010409153911.A862@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3ACB9DA8.29376.627230@localhost>; <20010405150043.A575@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3AD12C78.31383.9FB0EE@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <3AD12C78.31383.9FB0EE@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 03:28:56AM -0500 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 03:28:56AM -0500, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2001, at 15:00, Robin Faichney wrote:
>
> > You're not really engaging with what I'm saying here. The tipping
> > point phenomenon can be fully explained in terms of the behaviour of
> > individual grains. If enough grains were represented in a computer
> > model, along with gravity, the table top, etc, the tipping point
> > phenomenon would emerge, without having to be explicitly programmed.
> > It just *is* an overview of what a large number of grains will do when
> > piled up that way. It has no effect on any grain, each of which only
> > interacts with its immediate neighbours, but is the pattern we
> > perceive emerging out of many such interactions.
> >
> But we can perceive such an overview, while such an overview
> cannot exist for the grains themselves.
You think that's a point *against* my position? Let me enlighten you:
that statement supports my position. Different rules apply at different
levels, which is why mind-level free will is perfectly compatible with
neural-level determinism.
(More of the same sort of stuff snipped.)
> Top-down causation is as incontrovertible as scientific facts
> get, and if this means that the mind and/or the world are incoherent
> to you, I'm grateful that I do not share such a problem.
You say top-down causation is incontrovertible only because you think the
alternative is determinism. You are wrong on that, but until you make
the effort to understand the real alternative, you're stuck.
That wouldn't matter if your own view held together, but unfortunately
"top-down causation" can't be cashed in. The concept is vacuous.
You can't explain how it actually works, and neither can anyone else.
All you're doing in using the phrase is hand-waving.
So here's a challenge: either (1) explain exactly how top-down causation
works, or (2) admit you don't know, then explain why my position is so
wrong-headed that relying on a concept you don't understand is preferable,
or (3) admit my position is preferable. If you need to know more about
my position, you can look at the website and/or simply ask me, here on
the list or off-list. So how are you going to respond?
-- 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 : Mon Apr 09 2001 - 15:52:19 BST