Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA25596 (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 17:27:48 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [209.240.220.183] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Determinism Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:23:48 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F134mz6UuEhjJ8uT6Ss000063dc@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Apr 2001 16:23:48.0636 (UTC) FILETIME=[F4258DC0:01C0C36C] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: Determinism
>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 22:02:37 -0500
>
>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.
>
So there's a relationship between brain regions and behavior...interesting.
Does this imply a certain causal directionality between behavior and area?
>
>A) "I'm gonna do X"
>
From where does the impetus to do X stem from?
>
>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).
>
What caused A or was A uncaused?
>
>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.
>
Is "top down causation" explicitly referred to in the P.E.T. studies you are
basing your arguments on or are you interpreting these studies in the light
of top-down causation?
>
> > 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.
>
Is this a methodological limitation or something that is inherent in the
system itself? We may be limited in our capacity to reduce, but this does
not imply that things are not happening from the bottom up.
>
> >
> > 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."
>
Isn't the overall caual flow from the bottom up and wouldn't "top"
components decompose to lesser levels, though not amenable to limited
methods of investigation?
>
> >
> > 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.
>
I appreciate the importance of relations between components and the whole
being a little more than mere summation of parts, but this relects complex
interactions and would still be compatible with a general bottom up causal
flow. Now some compoents could tightly interweave and become a superpart
which could send causal arrows of its own to other compents, but this
superpart is still decomposable to its constituent elements (at least in
theory though practice would be messy if not impossible).
I can appreciate a healthy dose of holism (Gestalt or whatever) mixed with a
respectable dose of reduction. There are likely a myriad of interactions and
properties which emerge, but it's too easy to get overly metaphysical and
downright mystical when overselling emergentism, Gestaltism or whatever
philosophical stace which flirts with holism. Top down arrows could
exist,but would likely break down, upon closer expression to preceding
causes emanating from below.
My head hurts.
>
>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.
>
Is anything with any meat on its bones coming from Santa Fe or is it merely
highly theoretical or speculative abstraction...ideas awaiting an
application to show itself in the real world?
>
> >
> >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.
>
I think freedom of will or volition stems from the complexity of the nexus
below. Interelation of parts and all that apply, but this is mere babble on
my part. Maybe there are degrees of freedom and multiple combinations which
would make my head swim.
>
> >
> > 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
>
_________________________________________________________________
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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 12 2001 - 17:32:24 BST