Re: ality (cont'd)

From: Dace (
Date: Fri Feb 22 2002 - 18:37:36 GMT

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

    Received: by id SAA20794 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 18:41:51 GMT
    Message-ID: <003601c1bbd0$00cb4e00$bf24f4d8@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    Subject: Re: ality (cont'd)
    Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:37:36 -0800
    Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0033_01C1BB8C.F1B570A0"
    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

    > The bottom line is then that you are criticizing existing theory because of
    > alleged flaws in mechanism and then claiming that you don't need to show
    > a mechanism at all because your 'traditional definition' is proof enough.

    Quite the contrary. The "mechanism" is resonance of similar forms across

    > > > 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.
    > >
    > >When people make comments like this, it's because they're frustrated.
    > >They don't know how to deal with an argument they haven't even begun
    > >to comprehend, so they hurl insults.
    > I think I comprehend very well. Here is a snip from 'Tue, 11 Dec 2001
    > 11:08:57 -0800 Re: Definition please' that I think pins down the emotional
    > difficulty you are having.
    > >Once you cross the line between the self-contained mental universe of
    > >humanity and the blind workings of the organic realm, there's nothing to
    > >stop you from descending all the way back to the most elementary
    > >bacteria.
    > You have a problem similar to that of creationists. While the
    > creationist's ego is threatened by a physical evolutionary continuum yours
    > is threatened by the notion that your thinking processes share a common
    > basis with other simpler organisms that also possess nervous systems.

    I'm not the least bit threatened by this indisputable fact. That I recognize a profound difference between somatocentric life and the psychocentric life of humans doesn't make me any more of a creationist than you are. Keep in mind that the original mechanistic philosophy was theological, with God as the great "Mechanick."

    > > > 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.
    > >
    > >It's a meme when it becomes habituated among a a group of people.
    > It is an invalid analogy. The same meme is acquired by a mind once. Not
    > multiple times. There is no habitual acquisition of memes.

    Memes are habitual behaviors and ideas shared by groups of people. You sure you want to dismiss this view out of hand? Seems quite reasonable to me.

    > There must be some list server on cognitive science out there that you can
    > join. Good luck.

    Gotta love those passive-aggressives.


    > 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 - 18:51:49 GMT