Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA22145 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Sat, 23 Feb 2002 00:13:16 GMT Message-ID: <006101c1bbfe$4def4be0$b686b2d1@teddace> From: "Dace" <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <F275JziY7Vzajv1eXlM00004cea@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: ality Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:09:01 -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 Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> What animosity do you harbor for the brain?
None whatsoever, Scott. I have a stimulating relationship with my brain.
> Why do you diminish such a
> beautiful (if not perfect in the absolutist sense) organ in such a way.
> What's wrong with identifying the mind as function and/or epiphenomenon
> with the brain? At least the brain is tangible and concrete, not an
> abstraction fraught with diffuculties.
The mind may not be concrete, but it's not abstract either. Only the
*contents* of our thoughts are abstract. The thoughts themselves are as
real as the sun and the earth. We're not just imagining we're thinking. We
> The concept of mind is possibly disposible.
Heck, we're all disposable. Life itself is disposable, and we're doing a
damn good job of liquidating it.
> Dispose of the brain and you wind up with *geist*, polter- or otherwise.
> I recently watched a movie called _Momento_ where this guy had some
> serious memory problem.
Memento, yes. Excellent movie. Very disturbing. I hated it the whole time
and realized on the way out of the theatre it was a work of genius.
> I'd imagine this problem had a physical basis. Don't various amnesias
> have a physical basis, due to some insult to brain tissue? Don't
> various substances exert an influence on memory?
Assuming the brain facilitates all mental processes, they would have to.
> IIRC Korsakoff's
> syndrome has something to do with long-term alcohol consumption or at
> least involves a particular region of the brain.
> Actually my old neuropsych class text _Fundamentals of
> Neuropsychology_ by Kolb and Whishaw (1990. WH Freeman and
> Company, New York, p. 151) says in Table 7-3 this of a "probable cause"
> for Korsakoff's syndrome:
> (bq) "(a)trophy of medial thalamus and mamillary bodies from chronic
> excessive alcohol consumption." (eq)
No qualms here.
> _Momento_ was a cool movie, but not a comical as Dana Carvey's
> _Clean Slate_ with that funnylittle dog which had some sort of sight
> Would you deny that eyes are responsible for sight? Would you deny that
> the various components of the hearing apparatus (including external ear
> flaps and also parts evolutionarily co-opted from the "reptilian" jaw) are
> responsible for hearing? Rush Limbaugh recently had a problem (IIRC
> related to an auto-immune disease) with his hearing which may improve
> with new medical technology. If eyes are responsible for sight and the ear
> apparatus responsible for hearing, why would you deny the responsibility
> of the brain for "mind" and memory?
That the brain is necessary for mental processes doesn't mean these
processes are reducible to the brain. That you need compustible materials
for a fire doesn't mean the fire is nothing more than the materials
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 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 00:23:06 GMT