Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA23553 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 12 Apr 2001 04:00:11 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 22:02:37 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Determinism Message-ID: <3AD4D47D.5030.1CDB35@localhost> In-reply-to: <F147Yf0scL9NtDEJmGz00005986@hotmail.com> 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 19:59, Scott Chase wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
> >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >Subject: Re: Determinism
> >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:35:33 -0500
> >
> >On 9 Apr 2001, at 16:05, Robin Faichney wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 09:13:54AM -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Of course, the explanation for step two (as in that famous
> > > > comic) that they do use is "then a miracle occurs" which is the
> > > > time-honored hand-wave of the theologically biased.
> > >
> > > Now what does that remind me of? I know -- "top-down causation"!
> > > :-)
> > >
> >Miracles are then predicted and observed every day in PET-scan
> >labs all over the world. Some would call it science.
> > > --
> >
> >
> Please elaborate on how "top-down causation" has been demonstrated by
> P.E.T.
>
I have posted to you at length answering this question and have
received no response from you to my post. People report that they
are going to view a picture or read a text or listen to music or
speech or remember something they saw or heard, symbolic or
otherwise, and the appropriate areas subtending these functions
light up on the PET scan 99.999... % of the time. If they didn't,
PET scanning would be of no use in brain mapping, but it is, as the
areas which light up are exactly the areas which have been
damaged in people unable to perform the particular subtended
functions.
A) "I'm gonna do X"
B) appropriate area Y lights up
Repeat ad nauseum and A follows B with a prohibitively high
coefficient.
Scientific conclusion: A (the higher announced decision) causes B
(the accessing of the particular area of the supporting lower
material substrate). Once again, it's called science, is exactly how
scientific hypotheses are tested and corroborated, and I'm prepared
to repeat same 1200 times onlist if necessary. If some people
here have cognitive presupposition problems with these established
empirical facts, and they seem to, I'm just glad that I'm not one of
them.
> Would the entity which constitutes the "top" itself emerge from
> something that is indeed below? Could this "top" be subject to
> reduction?
>
The pattern does indeed emerge from the substrate and is
existentially dependent upon it, but cannot be reduced to it.
>
> I could envision a so-called "top" element stemming from other
> elements projecting causal arrows into it from below and itself
> sending causal arrows downward to other elements, but a full-blown
> "top" element not derived from other elements would have came into
> existence out of thin air now wouldn't it?
>
But it doesn't. I never denied the existence of bottom-up
causation; I simply stated that it was not the only kind of causation
in operation. Recursive loops involve both kinds of causation in
concert. It is a matter of "in addition to" instead of "instead of."
>
> In essence the "top"
> decomposes into lower level elements.
>
No it doesn't; while existentially dependent upon them, it is not
reduceable to them. The whole is mereologically composed of its
parts plus their myriad interrelations, both feedback and
feedforward, and the organizing principle of the gestalt whole
cannot be deconstructed into polyfurcated components without
destroying its configurational integrity. If you continue to have
problems cognizing this, I suggest that you peruse the book
EMERGENCE by John H. Holland of the Santa Fe Institute.
>
>Whatver emerges from the lower
> levels would be responsible for influencing other lower level elements,
> which is the same as saying lower level elements communicate through an
> elaborate causal web (or nexus) to influence other lower level
> elements.
>
There is influence, of course, but it can be, with effort, resisted. Or
not. This is the freedom of choiice which effort allows. The
recursive level at which self-referential considerations take
place cannot be fragmented into nonrecursive components without
destroying it.
>
> Would "top-down causation" thus vaporize upon closer inspection?
>
No, it would not, for the above reasons.
> _________________________________________________________________ Get
> your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 12 2001 - 04:03:11 BST