Re: ality

Date: Fri Feb 22 2002 - 20:23:36 GMT

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

    Received: by id UAA21269 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 20:26:50 GMT
    From: <>
    Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:23:36 -0500
    Subject: Re: ality
    X-Mailer: WorldClient Pro 2.2.1
    Message-ID: <>
    Precedence: bulk

    Hey Ted,

    I'm going to trim this monstrosity down a bit.

    > 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.
    I stand by my statement. It was an attack on your logic not an attack on
    your person. The fact that the brain makes mistakes does not invalidate
    a physical memory hypothesis and is a generic oversimplification.

    On the other hand this statement

    >Gotta love those passive-aggressives

    from the end of the next post has nothing to do with our discussion here.

    The inconsistency in your position on personal attacks is also visible in
    the logic behind your 'mind and memory' position.

    For example

    You offer
    > 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.

    as explanation for why the mind recalls imperfectly
    but later you say

    > 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.

    So in one paragraph your explanation for imperfections is that the past
    isn't around anymore. Three paragraphs later you say that it actually is.

    Even if you take the first paragraph by itself you still have no
    explanation for why the process of reconstruction would be imperfect.
    You just state that it naturally follows that since it is reconstruction
    it must of necessity be imperfect. Good old res ipsa loquitor.

    And once again you have no explanation for how neurons facilitate this.

    > > 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.
    > Ted

    In other words even though memory is located someplace else actual
    thinking processes are created by the functioning of neurons. Somehow all
    the alleged problems that apply to memory don't apply to the process of
    thought itself.

    Ray Recchia

    I may keep an eye on those newsgroups Scott mentioned just to see how
    well you fare there.

    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 - 20:36:46 GMT