Re: Memes in brain

From: dgatherer@talk21.com
Date: Thu Oct 11 2001 - 22:20:46 BST

  • Next message: salice: "no new mails"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA15204 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 11 Oct 2001 22:29:30 +0100
    From: <dgatherer@talk21.com>
    X-Mailer: talk21 v1.21 - http://talk21.btopenworld.com
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    X-Talk21Ref: none
    Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 22:20:46 BST
    Subject: Re: Memes in brain
    Message-Id: <20011011212209.BNVU29131.t21mta01-app.talk21.com@t21mtaV-lrs>
    Sender: fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Robin:
    Cognitive science is not primarily about neurology. The focus is on
    functionality. Leaving "neurological correlates" aside, the rest of
    what you mention there sounds very "mind-like" to me. The supernatural
    interpretation of "mind" is a straw man.

    Derek:
    Straw men make the best opponents..... Actually, I wasn't proposing a 'supernatural' mind is required. Even if you apply functionalism, you'll still have problems teasing out your memes-as-units. What I'm driving at is: what is the unit of brain functionality? What is the unit of selection of brain functionality?

    Derek previously:
    > As far as the mind goes, I think probably follow Dennett in not believing it
    > exists.

    Robin:
    I'd be grateful for a reference on that.

    Derek:
    http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/biblio.htm is the full list.
    More precisely, I was referring to Dennett's treatment of the Cartesian theatre in "Consciouness Explained". However, that's mind-as-qualia, not mind-as-function - so basically Dennett does believe in minds as you define them.

    Robin:
    So you think chess sets and universities don't really exist? Seems like
    rather a useless usage of "real", to me.

    Derek:
    Of course they do exist. But how could one count all the bricks in the university? One could count all the bricks in Brasenose College. It's a question of what's real enough to be scientifically analysable. (and no, it's not just a matter of counting all the bricks in all the colleges and summing them)

    Robin:
    How about this: the trajectory of a missile can be accurately tracked
    and recorded using the appropriate instrumentation. Is that trajectory
    real, or not?

    Derek:
    Yes, real and yes, scientifically analyzable. But is the mind (functional or otherwise) so straightforward?

    --------------------
    talk21 your FREE portable and private address on the net at http://www.talk21.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 Oct 11 2001 - 22:34:59 BST