Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA16400 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Thu, 21 Feb 2002 02:42:37 GMT Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:37:27 -0500 Subject: Re: ality Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed From: "Wade T.Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <005601c1ba7b$af7af820$2b87b2d1@teddace> Message-Id: <F20FEE6A-2673-11D6-8ECB-003065B9A95A@harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.481) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On Wednesday, February 20, 2002, at 09:01 , Dace wrote:
> As I've stated, memory involves reconstruction for the very simple
> that the past has no spatial or material existence.
Even though it was right there, just a moment ago. But yes, I can
concede your point, on a philosophical level, under one narrow and
semantic definition of 'past'.
> We have to recreate the
> appearance of recollected events.
Says who? Why do you think we all have to be internalist screenwriters?
> We go "back in time" in our minds, not
> our bodies.
And there you go again, putting the mind somewhere where it ain't got
any right being, somewhere other than in the body.
> If, on the other hand, memories are stored in the brain,
There ain't no other hand.
> recall should be as precise and accurate as a computer retrieving data.
You have a truly distorted sense of how memories are stored and how
precise the brain is, it seems.
> That our memories are reconstructed is a problem for the mechanistic
> not mine.
Au contraire, one has to provide some proof that memories _are_
reconstructed, in the first place.
===============================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 - 02:52:30 GMT