Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA21620 (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 09:57:13 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 03:59:33 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Message-ID: <3AD3D6A5.23009.10FDB8E@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010411094523.A11187@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3AD3BD75.2977.AD7469@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 02:12:05AM -0500 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 11 Apr 2001, at 9:45, Robin Faichney wrote:
> 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.
>
You must not have red my other email to you yet.
> --
> 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 - 10:03:34 BST