From: "Paul Marsden" <PaulMarsden@email.msn.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: On Gatherer's behaviourist stance
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:05:34 +0100
Aaron said
>It took several rounds of back and forth postings just to confront this
>particular blunder to the point where Derek ultimately dodges the issue. By
>comparison, the effort it takes to make a misleading quotation is minor.
>Unfortunately, the situation reminds me of "debates" between creationists
>and evolutionists, where the creationists can churn out sophistries faster
>than the evolutionists can answer them.
Hmm, I wonder who is the creationist and who is the evolutionist in this
one? (Clue 'essentialism and creationism go hand in hand' ( Palmer DC
Donahoe, JW Essentialism And Selectionism In Cognitive Science And
Behavior Analysis American Psychologist, 1992, Vol.47, No.11, Pp.1344-1358)
Paul Marsden
Graduate Research Centre in the Social Sciences
University of Sussex
e-mail PaulMarsden@msn.com
tel/fax (44) (0) 117 974 1279
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission:
http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit/
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net>
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Date: 14 September 1998 18:51
Subject: Re: On Gatherer's behaviourist stance
>Readers may be confused by Gatherer's sudden and complete change of the
>subject line, which on the one hand makes it seem as though he answered my
>post of 9/11/98, while at the same time making it harder for readers to
>locate just what I actually said. The post was under the heading "Re:
>Xtra!" which was formed by dropping the (no longer relevant) "Brodie
>Defends Lynch" part from a thread heading that Gatherer had launched.
>
>Derek has, in effect, dodged the matter of misattributing a key assertion
>to me by way of quoting the antecedent of a conditional statement out of
>context, removing the conditional's consequent clause and the words "If"
>and "then."
>
>It took several rounds of back and forth postings just to confront this
>particular blunder to the point where Derek ultimately dodges the issue. By
>comparison, the effort it takes to make a misleading quotation is minor.
>Unfortunately, the situation reminds me of "debates" between creationists
>and evolutionists, where the creationists can churn out sophistries faster
>than the evolutionists can answer them.
>
>Aaron Lynch writing (9/11/98):
>"Ok, forget the logic book, and kindly explain to me anew how you infer a
>definite statement about brain architecture from the conditional statement
>"If a mnemon resides very redundantly in someone's brain, that person still
>counts as only one host and one mnemon instantiation." The method of
>inference you used in your paper was to simply drop the inconvenient word
>"If," a move that I find to be at least as "uncivilized" as referring
>someone to a logic text."
>
>At 11:00 AM 9/14/98 -0400, Derek Gatherer wrote:
>>On Fri, 11 Sep 1998 13:12:59 -0500 Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The question of which mnemons one identifies and
>>> chooses to study is up to the abstraction system of the observer, which
>>> allows a wide range of theories of cognitive, personality, and social
>>> psychology to be used. I do not posit any kind of concrete neuron
structure
>>> of mnemons.
>>
>>So if the mnemon does not constitute a 'concrete neural structure', or
>>is not in some way dependent on 'concrete neural structure' then how is
>>it 'instantiated' (as you say) in the brain?
>
>Here, then, is Gatherer's next misattribution: While I do refuse to posit
>any kind of concrete neuron structure of mnemons, I do not say that such
>structures do not exist. And I absolutely do not say that it "is not in
>some way dependent on 'concrete neural structure.'" I merely do not
>*define* the mnemons I discuss in terms of such specific structures--though
>I leave open the possibility that neuroscience could some day allow for the
>definition of at least some mnemons in terms of neural structures.
>
>Consider the situation of 1000 computers each using different hardware.
>They might all nevertheless have copies of "the same" program "Eudora 4.0"
>in their memories. The program is always physically instantiated, but is
>not *defined* in terms of the physical details of its storage. With brains,
>we may have a situation where the "hardware" may be different in each
>individual person, yet likewise have copies of "the same" information in
>multiple individuals.
>
>
>> The 'abstraction
>>system of the observer' is not an answer, as _my_ abstraction
>>system has no influence whatsoever over what is in _your_ brain.
>
>Assuming that I am not swayed (through communication) by your abstractions,
>your abstraction system only affects the ways in which you consider some
>information in my brain to be "the same as" information in someone else's
>brain.
>
>>'If a mnemon resides very redundantly in someone's brain....'
>>
>>So it does reside in the brain? Or are you saying that a mnemon might
>>not reside in the brain?
>
>No, I am not saying that a mnemon might not reside in the brain, or more
>precisely, the nervous system. It is instantiated only in the nervous
>system, usually if not always, in the brain.
>
>>Whether it resides in many copies or one copy
>>or in both hemispheres etc. is not your central point.
>
>Agreed. You should never have attributed to me an assertion that a meme
>"resides very redundantly in someone's brain."
>
>> Throughout your
>>article you state that mnemons 'reside' or are 'instantiated' in
>>brains, that individuals are 'hosts' to these mnemons. How?
>
>I have already stated that I do not know the details of how the brain
>works, any more than Pasteur knew the details of how one could host a
virus.
>
>>You also say: 'the principle abstractions manipulated with
>>memetics theory are memory abstractions or mnemons'. Memory must
>>have a neural basis, but you now seem to seek to deny that you
>>require 'any concrete neural structures'. Without such a structure
>>how could your mnemon 'reside' or be 'instantiated' in the brain?
>>
>>This, I submit, constitutes a contradiction of what you have written.
>
>The "contradiction" arises only by misattribution. I simply do not "seek to
>deny that I require 'any concrete neural structures.'"
>
>>> Pasteur had no idea what a virus was, except that it was too small for
him
>>> to see.
>>
>>An irrelevant point, since Pasteur knew that there were physical
>>infectious agents. He had taken great experiemntal pains to
>>demonstrate them. His puzzle with the virus was that it was beyond his
>>range of visibility. He still examined it within the paradigm of
>>transmissible physical agents causing disease. We have no
>>equivalent paradigm.
>>
>>> He nevertheless was able to conclude that contracting cow pox
>>> conferred protection against small pox.
>>
>>That was Jenner actually, but never mind...
>
>I stand corrected on the specific virus. Pasteur worked with a rabies
>vaccine, Jenner on small pox. Pasteur still did not know what a virus was.
>
>>> I fully welcome the ongoing work in neuroscience, but
>>> continue to assert that useful study of propagating memory items can be
>>> done right now.
>>
>>Again the assumption is made that there are 'propagating memory items'.
>>
>>> Epidemiology at 150 years certainly has an extensive knowledge base upon
>>> which to rely. The infectious agent in my model is identified more
>>> abstractly than by turning on the electron microscope: it is infectious
>>> information, stored in brains.
>>
>>Ah! so again it _is_ 'stored in brains'. Using a 'concrete neural
>>structure' perhaps? Remember a 'concrete neural structure' is the
>>thing that you 'do not posit'. So how then is it stored? What
>>other mechanism do we have for storing things in brains?
>>
>>I said before: "If you are going to have infectious brain
>>structures you need to explain them."
>
>Again, I do not posit infectious brain structures. A computer virologist
>does not posit "infectious RAM structures" (or infectious disk structures,
>computer structures, etc.) either. He may, however, define his topic in
>terms of infectious memory items, provided that he clarifies (as I have)
>that "memory item" is to be identified more abstractly than in terms of
>such physical details as microscopic wiring diagrams.
>
>
>>to which you replied:
>>
>>> Here you go inventing another concept and attributing me. I do not talk
>>> about "infectious brain structures." Period.
>>
>>Oh yes you do. Period.
>
>This is starting to look like a "yes I do," "No I don't" argument. Anyone
>who wants to can look in my writings for "infectious brain structure(s)."
>
>
>>You talk above about 'propagating memory items', elsewhere
>>about 'thought contagions'. Now to me a thought must be a manifestation
>>of a brain structure. A contagion is an infection. So you do not talk
>>about 'thought contagions'? You can't say that you don't talk about
>>'infectious brain structures' and then turn round and talk about
>>'thought contagion' and 'propagating memory items'. Make your mind up
>>please.
>
>I clarify again: "thoughts" and "memory items" as I use the terms are not
>defined as brain structures even though, as abstractly defined entities,
>they are always instantiated in brain structures. The specific brain
>structures do not need to be identical between individuals counted as
>having "the same" abstractly defined memory item.
>
>>The only escape from this is for you to deny that thoughts are anything
>>to do with brain structures (now that I look forward too....), or to
>>start splitting logic about the difference between an infection and a
>>contagion, or perhaps there is a third option available to you which is
>>to retreat to some abtruse analogy from quantum physics (I predict
>>you'll go for the latter. The mystical attributes of the
>>'abstraction sysyem of the observer' and their influence over
>>what is stored (but wait, non-neurally) in brains...).
>
>Here, you display an eagerness to attribute arguments to me even before I
>make them.
>
>>> The brain-based existence of "thoughts," or "subjectively perceived
>>> information"
>>
>>Ah! Thoughts _are_ brain based! But not with 'concrete neural
>>structures'? Now that is a real puzzle!! But otherwise 'Thought
>>Contagion' = Brain-based infection?
>>
>>but wait....
>>
>>> I do not
>>> talk
>>> about "infectious brain structures." Period.
>>
>>What are you talking about then?
>
>I am talking about information that is more abstract than specific brain
>structures, but which is *instantiated* in brain structures. Brain
>structures are the substrate of the information, but brain structures are
>not being transferred person to person. The specific brain structures that
>store knowledge of the English alphabet, for instance, might *never* be the
>same from person to person, even though the "alphabet" is the same person
>to person.
>
>>> Ok, forget the logic book, and kindly explain to me anew how you infer a
>>> definite statement about brain architecture from the conditional
statement
>>> "If a mnemon resides very redundantly in someone's brain, that person
still
>>> counts as only one host and one mnemon instantiation."
>>
>>This mnemon is 'residing' in the brain.... you say it here and at
>>numerous other points in your article..... you want it to 'reside in
>>the brain' but not to have a 'concrete neural structure'
>
>You have dodged the issue of how you got a definite from a conditonal.
>
>>Behind your smokescreen of quibbles, the deeply contradictory nature of
>>your model still requires explanation (and again yes, you are obliged
>>to defend it).
>
>So instead of answering how you got a definite from a conditional, you
>dismiss the matter as a "quibble." Asked to defend the logic in YOUR paper,
>all you can do is dismiss the request as a "quibble"?
>
>--Aaron Lynch
>
>http://www.mcs.net/~aaron/thoughtcontagion.html
>
>===============================================================
>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