Re: ality

From: Dace (
Date: Fri Feb 22 2002 - 23:40:20 GMT

  • Next message: Dace: "Re: ality"

    Received: by id XAA22068 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 23:44:40 GMT
    Message-ID: <004901c1bbfa$4bcb0920$b686b2d1@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: ality
    Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:40:20 -0800
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    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

    > > 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

    Nor have I ever claimed it does.

    > and is a generic oversimplification.

    Exactly. You're caricaturing my position with a gross oversimplification
    and then dismissing it on that basis.

    > 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.

    Nor was it intended to further our discussion. It was a reaction to your
    sublimated hostility. Unlike you, when I get personal, I'm up front about

    > 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,
    > > 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.

    Instead of trying to understand my point, you're fishing for contradictions.
    As I stated in my post, the mind perceives the *form* of the past, not its
    appearance, which must be reconstructed. The past isn't *materially* around

    > 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.

    You snipped the paragraph in which I spelled it out:

    "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."

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

    Nor is any explanation required. My argument is a priori and must be dealt
    with on logical terms. You've got your head stuck in your posteriori.

    > > > 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.
    > In other words even though memory is located someplace else

    Memory has no spatial location. The past is nowhere.

    > 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.

    Thoughts are not reducible to neurons (and their synaptic connections).
    Thinking involves representation, which is not a physical or chemical
    property. That which represents the world cannot simultaneously be part of
    the world represented. To ascribe representation to the brain is to endow
    it with a magical property possessed by no other object, living or dead.
    You're setting the brain apart, i.e. sacralizing it. This is your religion.


    > 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 - 23:54:34 GMT