Re: ality

From: Ray Recchia (
Date: Thu Feb 21 2002 - 03:58:32 GMT

  • Next message: Francesca S. Alcorn: "Re: Words and memes"

    Received: by id EAA16567 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 04:06:12 GMT
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
    Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 22:58:32 -0500
    From: Ray Recchia <>
    Subject: Re: ality
    In-Reply-To: <005601c1ba7b$af7af820$2b87b2d1@teddace>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
    Precedence: bulk

    All right one more time for fun.

    > > 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.

    This is the kind of oversimplified assertion that you constantly make. Of
    course there are possible explanations for mistakes in memory. If memories
    are stored as changes in threshold levels of neural receptors they
    could be subject to modification due to a large variety of sources. The
    simple fact that the molecules in cell membranes get replaced over a
    period of time could cause easily cause this. The fact that memory would
    be operating near the quantum level means that is likely to have an
    inherent error factor similar to the way that errors in DNA replication occur.

    I don't think I misstated your hypothesis here. You go back in time in
    your mind. So how do people make mistakes? However you feel like phrasing
    it just answer the question. Where do the mistakes come from? Hypothesis
    A - the brain model has lots of room for mistakes. How does hypothesis B -
    the mind back in time model account for the same things.

    If you want to claim it is a problem with hypothesis A then you should have
    an explanation as to why it isn't a problem with hypothesis B.

    > > 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.
    Once again this is your definition. You have no difference here other than
    your reliance on the mind looking up memories in time. It's circular
    logic. Since memories are caused by the mind looking backward in time they
    are not the same as data. Since the mind has mind has memories it must be
    able to look backward in time.

    > > 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'.
    > > '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.
    You've just restated your original hypothesis and inferred that since the
    mind exists there must be a connection. Just explain how the actual
    neurons do it. If they facilitate it then how?

    > > 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.
    Yes it will. It will mean that people with same basic assumptions can have
    a discussion about their common interests. It is like trying to have a
    discussion on punctuated equilibrium when someone keeps interrupting you to
    let everyone know that actually God created the Earth.

    > > 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.

    Yes and that where why you keep on insisting on this mind through time
    thing. Because you are emotionally unable to accept that you are caused by
    the physical world. Your thinking is ultimately not fact driven but
    emotion driven.

    > > Your definition of memes requires acceptance of those ideas
    >How can that be when I haven't mentioned morphic theory in months?
    All then lets look at your definition. According to you ideas and
    behaviors start out being reproduced 'intentionally'. In the case of the
    Southern accent example the intention may be subconscious. Then after a
    while according to you, the ideas or behaviors take on a life of their own
    and are reproduced without further subconscious human intention. At that
    point they become memes. When does this magical point occur when
    subconscious intentional reproduced behaviors turn into memes? Just after
    a while. It's really hard to say isn't it? In fact it is a meaningless
    distinction that no one would have any reason to accept unless....hmm..
    maybe after being reproduced enough times they create a morphic impression
    or something of that sort? Isn' t that what that otherwise useless
    definition is about? Because according to you a behavior can be
    reproduced even subconsciously in its beginning stages without alteration
    and still not be a meme because it hasn't happened enough times.

    > > 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.

    In fact Ted convince a different crowd and I would be happy to listen to
    you. Go to the cognitive scientists and push your hypothesis on them. I am
    not a cognitive scientist. I have some interest in it but for the purposes
    of developing memetics I think it makes more sense to start with the same
    assumptions accepted by recognized authorities in the field. If you can
    get some noted experts in the field to start quoting Sheldrake and yourself
    then I would be more than willing to take a second look.

    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 - 04:16:11 GMT