Re: ality

From: Dace (
Date: Fri Feb 22 2002 - 18:24:23 GMT

  • Next message: Dace: "Re: ality (cont'd)"

    Received: by id SAA20761 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 18:28:42 GMT
    Message-ID: <002901c1bbce$2862b860$bf24f4d8@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    Subject: Re: ality
    Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:24:23 -0800
    Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0026_01C1BB8B.19008FC0"
    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

    > >It's far worse than you realize. Neuronal connections are in constant
    > >flux. The brain is incapable of statically storing data. Yes, this would
    > >indeed explain why the brain can't seem to get our memories straight.
    > >But if it's utterly unlike a computer, why continue assuming it stores data?
    > >
    > >If the brain is built to store data, it ought to do it well. After all, we
    > >humans took only a few decades to build a device that does it extremely
    > >well. When you start coming up with reasons why it wouldn't do a very
    > >good job of it, you're undermining your position. You're making my
    > >argument for me. Of course the brain would do a lousy job of storing
    > >information. That's not what it's built for.
    > Once again the same problem. An oversimplified assertion that to does
    > nothing to prove your point.

    Once again the same problem. Generic insults like "oversimplified assertion" do nothing to prove your point. They're a symptom of insecurity. You're afraid some of the people on this list might not be as smart as you and might require help in arriving at the "correct" interpretation.

    > 'If the brain is built to store data it ought to do it well.' It does do it well.

    What makes you think it does it at all? How do you know it's not the *mind*
    that recalls-- not by storing data but by *remembering*?

    > It does it well enough to assist in survival of the organism.

    The only thing we know with certainty about the brain is that it routes
    incoming (afferent) signals to outgoing (efferent) signals. Apparently, it
    does this job effectively enough that we survive. That's science, Ray. All
    else is speculation.

    > By your logic hearts would not actually pump blood because
    > people have heart attacks.

    The point is that the mind, not the brain, imperfectly recalls the past, as
    we would expect, since the past isn't around anymore and therefore has to be reconstructed. On the other hand, if memory were a computer-like storage device, it should function with roughly the same degree of accuracy found in computers themselves. The fact that the brain demonstrates no particular propensity for being an information storage device doesn't exactly help your position. We examine brains and think we see computers. It's not just irrational. It's *systematically* irrational, i.e. insane. Collective hallucination. Cult, not culture.

    > > > 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?
    > >
    > >Already answered. Consult the top of the post.
    > No you haven't answered anything.

    The past is intangible. It's got no material substance. Doesn't take up
    any space. And even if it did, there's no light to bounce off it. The past
    is dark. What we remember is the form of the event, not its appearance.
    Memory requires (imaginary) sets and lighting. Naturally it's not going to
    display computer-like accuracy.

    > > > >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.
    > >
    > >This is a bizarre reformulation of the traditional, *universal* definition
    > >of memory. The mind doesn't look up memories in a static, data storage
    > >system called "time." To remember is to restore the past into present
    > >consciousness. There's no informational intermediary.
    > You don't have a 'traditional' definition. You have mental time travel.

    That would be the sci-fi definition of memory. The mind doesn't have to
    travel back in time, as the body would if it were to revisit old events. Rather,
    the past remains present, despite no longer being spatio-materialized.
    Time is absolute and singular. There's no succession of discrete "moments." There's one moment, and the moment remains present. Time is fluid. There's no boundary to set off existence (present) from oblivion (past). There's no demarcation-- look all you want. The present bleeds into past. The true present embraces all of time-- what is "past" up to and including the material present. The brain is the material present of the mind. The mind traverses time just as the brain traverses space. The mind perceives the past as easily as the eye/brain perceives light.

    > And you don't have any mechanism that you can connect to the
    > brain. You simply have no explanation for how neurons do this.

    That we can view a coin from opposite perspectives doesn't mean "heads"
    and "tails" are separate objects. No need for any connections. The mind is
    no more reducible to the brain than vice versa, any more than tails might be
    reducible to heads or the other way round.

    > > > 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.
    > >
    > >If the mind has memories, then it re-presents past experiences.
    > >According to the mechanistic theory, the mind has no genuine
    > >memories, only data, which are carelessly referred to as "memories."
    > >It's an Orwellian shift in language, preventing even the possibility of
    > >understanding since the word we traditionally used for it has been
    > >redefined into something else.
    > The way traditional science works is that we observe the world and come
    > with up definitions that match what is being observed. Not the other way
    > around.

    I smell cant.


    > 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 : Fri Feb 22 2002 - 18:38:38 GMT