Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id IAA21189 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:09:44 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:12:05 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Message-ID: <3AD3BD75.2977.AD7469@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010409153911.A862@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3AD12C78.31383.9FB0EE@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 03:28:56AM -0500 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 9 Apr 2001, at 15:39, Robin Faichney wrote:
> 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.
>
Which is exactly why top-down causation can work with the
emergence of a consciousness that can be self-aware enough to
recursively apply what aware but not self-aware creatures apply to
the world.
>
> (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.
>
What you fail to grok is that the entire pile of grains is involved in
the tipping point, and since they rest on one another, not only all
the grains considered singly, but also their interrelations, must be
factored in, something which atomistic reductionism simply does
not and cannot do. In the same but vastly more complex way, the
entire brain-body-environment-other complexure influences the
range of our choices and differentially weighs them, but due to the
complex recursions, feedback and feedforward involved in such a
(at least partially) consciously self-aware system and the meaning
it imposes upon the being of its choices and considerations, blind
purposeless domino causation cannot suffice; the dominoes do not
consider their own welfare, or even altruistically forbear from such
consideration..
>
> 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.
>
Howzit work? A given dynamically recursive patterning of energy in
the substrate brain corresponds to our self-awareness, perception
and memory, and was in fact formed largely from a lengthy and
ongoing interaction of the material substrate brain with its environs
(including others), its somatic sensations and its previously
present patterns; on the basis of its experience, which is correlated
with certain stored and accessible patterns, it may conclude that
some perception should be investigated further, and does so, and
the corresponding alterations in the pattern configuration are
directed to focus the eyes for sharper vision or to tilt the head for
better audition as the areas subtending these functions are
selectively attended to (stimulated), or may conclude that a certain
mamory should be accessed further to compare with the
perception in question, and the directed neural stimulation of its
substrate pathways causes other related pathways to activate,
further fleshing out the memory. How to correlate perception,
action, knowledge, judgment and desire in the willed use of our
body/minds (the mind is of course a part of the body) is a skill
learned by trial and error from infancy. I consider 'then another
molecule went 'bump in the cortical night'" to be much more of an
exercise in handwaving than this, except I sincerely doubt if such
dominoing could wave a hand.
>
> 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?
>
Check above. Your position is a litany of belief flying directly in the
teeth of a massive body of experimentally verified scientific
evidence. Democritus opined such two and a half thousand years
ago, but we've advanced a bit since then, and know that the
reductionistic "the whole is the sum of its parts' is pernicious
maya.
> --
> 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 : Wed Apr 11 2001 - 08:12:31 BST