Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA15090 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:22:44 GMT Message-ID: <00b901c1a2f3$9c04d6c0$2dc1b3d1@teddace> From: "Dace" <edace@earthlink.net> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <200201220139.g0M1dQW01911@mail15.bigmailbox.com> Subject: Re: Sensory and sensibility Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:19:30 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: Joe Dees
> >> What an active imaginition these guys had. But
> >> different times, different memes.
> >
> >Different times, same memes. We're still faced with exactly the same
> >debate, now characterized in terms of "intension and extension." For
> >instance, the intension of telephone is the idea that each of us
> >comprehends in our mind, while the extension of telephone is the set of
> > actual telephones in the world. Plato argued that reality is
intensional
> >(transcendent) while Aristotle countered that reality is extensional
> >(immanent). For Plato the essence of the telephone is our idea of it.
For
> >Aristotle its essence is physically inherent to it. This question is
still
> >unresolved. The modern outlook is primarily Platonic. Newtonian Laws
are
> >a streamlined version of Platonic Forms. Instead of having a Form for
which
> >each object is a manifestation, we have a small set of laws, and in
obeying
> >these laws, matter naturally forms into the various objects of the world.
> >Like Plato, we take a mathematical approach. We don't believe anything
> >until we've seen the math, be it electromagnetism, relativity, or chaos.
> >It's the math that makes it so.
> >
> >The only real challenge to the dominance of Platonism in Western thought
> >was Darwin. Like Aristotle, Darwin regarded matter as inherently
creative.
> >There's no deity shaping the species. Our forms arise from within.
> >Organisms are material entities which creatively adapt to environmental
> >conditions, and these adaptations are passed on to future species. Alas,
> >the Darwinian view was entirely discredited early in the 20th century.
The
> >new view, known as neo-Darwinism but better known as Weismannism, does
> >away with the concept of adaptation and replaces it with "exaptation."
Random
> >mutation in our genes causes a new trait to emerge. Then the organism
makes
> >use of the newly-acquired trait when the need for it happens to arise.
So,
> >there's no creativity on the part of the organism, just a mechanical
process
> >in which randomly altered genes are selected by environmental conditions.
> >In conformance with Newton, matter is under the control of mathematical,
> >deterministic processes.
> >
> >While the ancients struggled with the issue of materialism versus
idealism,
> >the moderns loudly proclaim the former while silently assuming the
latter.
> >Our approach reflects the survival strategy of the idealism meme, which
> >propagates by cloaking itself in its exact opposite. It also exploits
our
> >male-centric attitude. Matter is another word for mother. The earth is
> >traditionally regarded as feminine, while the sky is masculine. That
> >intelligent idea dominates helpless and random matter is sky-god
thinking.
> >In this mental environment, there was no possibility that Darwin's meme
> >would be selected.
> Of course, the unfounded assumption here is the one that automatically
assigns transcendence to intensionality (mental memes). They are instead
manifestly part of the immanent world, as dynamic pattern-configurations of
neurons, dendrites, axons and synapses, encoding semantic content. Their
activation when an individual is performing mental tasks can be registered
on PET scans and fMRI. No ephemeral skygodisms necessary, just the
measuring technology that good science has allowed us to create, combined
with experimentation under controlled conditions utilizing the scientific
method.
>>>
In order to render the transcendent immanent, not only would mind have to be
reduced to brain, but the laws of nature would have to be reduced to nature.
No one is suggesting that. Atoms don't contain within them the laws
governing their actions, any more than neurons contain the abstract thoughts
according to which they behave.
Ted
===============================================================
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 : Tue Jan 22 2002 - 04:35:45 GMT