Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA21560 (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 09:50:38 +0100 Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:45:23 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Message-ID: <20010411094523.A11187@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3AD12C78.31383.9FB0EE@localhost>; <20010409153911.A862@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3AD3BD75.2977.AD7469@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <3AD3BD75.2977.AD7469@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 02:12:05AM -0500 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 02:12:05AM -0500, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On 9 Apr 2001, at 15:39, Robin Faichney wrote:
>
> > 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.
If you can explain top-down causation in a pile of sand (see below), or
any other relatively simple scenario, then I'll consider it in relation
to consciousness etc. Until then, you're still hand-waving.
> > 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.
I mentioned the grains' interrelations almost as often as I mentioned
grains. I stated more than once that I view the tipping point as
entirely real, only denying that it can be considered to exert any
influence over individual grains. It's a pattern that emerges out of the
interrelated behaviour of many grains. If you can show me, in detail,
with no hand-waving, how such an emergent pattern can influence its own
components, you'll have won, and I'll admit it and congratulate you.
-- 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 : Wed Apr 11 2001 - 09:53:36 BST