Re: ality

From: Dace (
Date: Thu Feb 21 2002 - 02:01:31 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: ality"

    Received: by id CAA16340 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 02:05:49 GMT
    Message-ID: <005601c1ba7b$af7af820$2b87b2d1@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    Subject: Re: ality
    Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:01:31 -0800
    Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0053_01C1BA38.A06CBBE0"
    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
    Precedence: bulk
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    > This is a complete waste of time but what the heck
    > All right Ted
    > If in fact memory is some sort of time
    > travel then it shouldn't be possible for people for to be mistaken about
    > the past. Since they are actually using time travel their recall should be
    > perfect. In fact mistakes in recall match the model currently proposed by
    > cognitive scientists which is that memories are not so much recalled as
    > reconstructed. Instead of keeping an exact picture in our heads we
    > remember the properties of an event and then piece those properties
    > back together.

    As I've stated, memory involves reconstruction for the very simple reason
    that the past has no spatial or material existence. We have to recreate the
    appearance of recollected events. We go "back in time" in our minds, not
    our bodies. If, on the other hand, memories are stored in the brain, our
    recall should be as precise and accurate as a computer retrieving data.
    That our memories are reconstructed is a problem for the mechanistic view,
    not mine.

    > Of course since you have invented your place where the mind exists
    > outside the brain

    I've made no such claim. Over and over again I've stated that mind and
    brain are the same thing viewed from different perspectives.

    > I have little doubt that you can similarly invent properties
    > for this place that explain these problems away.

    Ad hominem. You're venting. It's not doing anyone any good.

    > > Memory concerns time, not space. Otherwise it's not really memory but
    > > merely the storage and retrieval of information. In our memetically
    > > ingrained, mechanistic worldview, true memory is a thing of the past.
    > > Artificial memory is just that-- artifice.
    > You are creating your own definition and then insisting that reality match
    > it.

    This is an interesting inversion of reality. The arrogance of mechanistic
    science is that it redefines terms and then insists that everyone cease
    using them according to their age-old meaning.

    Memory is the recollection of the past. That's what it has always meant.
    To remember something is to bring the past back, not materially but
    mentally. When you have to look up information on a past event, then
    clearly you're not remembering it. This applies whether you look it up in a
    book or your brain. Either way, it's data, not memory.

    > You have yet come with
    > explanation as to how the neurons in a person's head connect to the
    > 'mind' and allow for your 'connection to time'.

    Why would the brain require a "connection to time?" Nothing exists except
    to the extent that it occupies time. But the brain merely rides the current
    of time, while the mind also includes the motionless depths. To speak of
    them as separate things in need of some sort of connection is like wondering how the visible portion of an iceberg connects to the invisible portion below.

    > 'The brain facilitates
    > memory' you are so fond of saying. Well how does that work? How do the
    > neurons in the brain perform that function? You have offered nothing on
    > this.

    It's a question of logic. The brain is a physical object. The mind and its
    properties are self-evidently not physical. Yet, just as clearly, there is
    no mind without a brain. Thus the brain facilitates the mind without
    containing it.

    > I'm going to be blunt. I wish you would quit wasting our time here.

    I understand that it's frustrating to be confronted with a refutation of your cherished beliefs for which you have no answer. But getting me to shut
    up won't change anything.

    > Your real interest in not in memes but in 'morphic fields'.

    Ad hominem. Not that it makes the slightest difference, but my real
    interest is in the question of freedom. That's what got me started down
    this road.

    > Your definition of memes requires acceptance of those ideas

    How can that be when I haven't mentioned morphic theory in months?

    > and acceptance of those ideas requires a different understanding of
    > physics

    Absolutely not. Mechanistic biology is stuck in the world of 17th century
    physics. Only in the 19th century did we begin to understand fields and
    resonance. However, physics cannot comprehend life because living things
    exist intrinsically, and physics is concerned only with relational existence. This doesn't mean we need a new physics, just that it cannot describe reality in whole.

    > Don't think that you have made any converts.

    This is a particularly nasty comment. What makes you think I'm any different
    than anyone else on this list? I'm here to learn and to share what I've

    > No one here accepts your ideas
    > and after a while people just give up trying to argue with you.

    Appealing to the crowd. Well, at least you've switched over to another
    fallacy. How refreshing.


    > Ray Recchia

    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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 21 2002 - 02:15:47 GMT