Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA26944 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 13 Apr 2001 02:05:30 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 20:08:04 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Determinism Message-ID: <3AD60B24.30346.790C0A@localhost> In-reply-to: <F134mz6UuEhjJ8uT6Ss000063dc@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 12 Apr 2001, at 12:23, 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 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? >
>
When a decision is made and before it is acted upon, the P-300
neural site in the top center of the cerebral cortex spikes (an
impulse runs through it).
>
> >A) "I'm gonna do X" >
>
> >From where does the impetus to do X stem from?
>
From one's consideration of a perceptually presented situation,
taking into account one's self-interest, one's goals and purposes,
and extrapolations from one's retained experiences of similar
situations, and how various actions modified them.
>
>> >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?
>
No, it is an explicit theory originating with Nobel Laureate roger
Sperry; a theory which is central to the most prevalent stance
found in contemporary cognitive neuroscience, that of emergent
materialism.
>
> > 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?
>
It is an inherent property of emergent systems which are
sufficiently complex to be recursive and self-referential; in such
cases, the recursion uses the material substrate pathways without
(totally) originating from or being caused by outside factors feeding
into them, such as from the environment.
>
> 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 casual
> 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).
>
Not when to decompose would involve separating elements whose
separation would involve the destruction of the gestalt whole, and
that is what we are discussing here with the emergent self.
>
> 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.
>
Top-down and bottom-up interact in recursively complex emergent
systems, and it cannot be said where either ends and the other
begins.
>
> 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?
>
A lot of money has been made applying the principles of
complexity theory (as developed by Kenneth Arrow) to the stock
market. Our most sophisticated life and ecology sims have been
applications of John Holland's work (EMERGENCE and HIDDEN
ORDER are two good sources). Work on morphic constraints
upon evolution and the spontaneous occurrence of morphic
regularities has been done by Stuart Kauffman (AT HOME IN THE
UNIVERSE (popular) and THE ORIGINS OF ORDER (academic))
elucidate these. And much more is being done, and applied, by
many more who have NOT won Nobels (these have).
>
>> > > > >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 choice 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.
>
I'm not claiming absolute freedom; I'm arguing for partial freedom, a
degree of it, against the purveyors of absolute determinism. A lot
of determinism exists, but the universe in general (especially the
microphysical), and self-conscious awareness in particular (due to
Godelian complexity), are not amenable to absolute
superdeterminism.
>
> > > > > > 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 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 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 02:08:34 BST