Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA23098 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sat, 23 Feb 2002 07:04:31 GMT Message-ID: <005a01c1bc37$c0bb2d40$5a86b2d1@teddace> From: "Dace" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> Subject: Re: ality Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 23:00:16 -0800 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0057_01C1BBF4.B18B5F40" 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: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ray Recchia
> > > The fact that the brain makes mistakes does not invalidate
> > > a physical memory hypothesis
> >Nor have I ever claimed it does.
> Snip - from a previous post
> >If, on the other hand, memories are stored in the brain, our
> >recall should be as precise and accurate as a computer retrieving data.
> >That our memories are reconstructed is a problem for the mechanistic
> >view, not mine.
> So what was that you were saying?
Okay, I'll explain it again. It's not that the brain's imperfection rules out the physical memory-trace hyothesis, but that a neural storage system should be comparable in accuracy to a cybernetic storage system. Since it's obviously not, this strongly suggests that the brain does not store memories.
> > Unlike you, when I get personal, I'm up front about it.
> Yes. And of course it is just a sign of your frustration.
You've degenerated to gratuitous tit-for-tat comments. The only thing frustrating me here is your lack of comprehension. Exactly the same thing that's frustrating you.
> > > 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
> But your self-evident axioms aren't self-evident to anyone here but you.
> Which makes them quite a bit less than self-evident. The only person
> doing the midgaard serpent imitation here is you.
That we exist is self-evident only to me? Does that mean the rest of you are hallucinations? No, I think it's self-evident to all people that people do indeed exist. It's equally self-evident that terms like "experience," "thought," and "feeling" are physically and chemically meaningless. Thus we're not identical to our brains, which are, after all, physical objects, are they not? Finally, it's self-evident that minds don't exist without brains. So, where's the part that's not axiomatic?
> >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.
> So on the one hand brain and mind are just different aspects of the same
> thing. On the other hand you don't need to be able explain how the two
> are connected.
How can we explain the connection between two things that are actually one? Is the "one hand" clapping audibly all by itself, or does it require the "other hand" to help out? Please clarify.
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 - 07:14:19 GMT