Re: ality

From: Ray Recchia (
Date: Sat Feb 23 2002 - 14:04:12 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: ality"

    Received: by id OAA23649 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 14:11:21 GMT
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
    Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 09:04:12 -0500
    From: Ray Recchia <>
    Subject: Re: ality
    In-Reply-To: <005a01c1bc37$c0bb2d40$5a86b2d1@teddace>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
    Precedence: bulk

    Hey Ted,

    At 11:00 PM 2/22/2002 -0800, you wrote:
    >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
    >Got it?

    Yeah it got. Same overgeneralization using different terms. Lets break
    down the assumptions you are making to draw this conclusion.

    1) It isn't 'obviously not as accurate'. You haven't demonstrated that the
    error rate for the neural system IS different from that of computers. You
    have never had a corrupted file on your hard drive? Under the brain
    storage theory there is lot of information in there. A lifetime of
    memories. Can you give me a percentage of how much of it is
    inaccurate? The accuracy rate may be different and I would even concede it
    is unlikely that they are the same but you have no way of proving which is
    more accurate.

    2) Even if there were demonstrable differences it does not follow logically
    that any data storage system necessarily is required to perform at certain
    level of accuracy. A hand drawn picture is a form of data storage and it
    isn't particularly accurate either. The constraint on the level of accuracy
    is an evolutionary one and need not be determined by the level of accuracy
    in any other data storage system.

    This point is a loser for you Ted. You continual beating of it does
    nothing to enhance to enhance your position.

      (And no this isn't a personal attack. If someone tells me that a certain
    argument I'm planning on making in court isn't going to work I don't take
    it personally. I assume that my co-workers are making an honest assessment
    and either abandon the argument or modify it. Naturally there is a little
    sting because if I come up with what I think is a good argument it kind of
    sucks to learn that it isn't, but I don't try and blame it on someone
    else. This is probably what is going on with you. You are responding to
    the sting and not the argument, and because you have so much more of
    yourself tied up in this it becomes harder to make the distinction. )

    > > > 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
    > > >posteriori.
    > >
    > > 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?

    Assumption 1 (people exist) is as much a part of the brain memory
    hypothesis as the your time memory hypothesis

    Assumption 2 (experience, thought and feeling are physically and chemically
    meaningless) is not a self-evident axiom and is in fact a major difference
    between these two competing hypothesis. No one on this list server would
    agree with your making this an axiom. This is something you are going to
    have to prove not assume.

    Finally it does not logically follow from 1(people exist) and 2
    (experience, thought, and feeling are chemically meaningless) that memory
    is retrieved from the form of the past by the mind using imagination.

    You gotta have a few other things here.

    > > >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.
    I'm a little unclear on how the clapping thing ties into this but here goes:

    If two things are the same then they are both reducible to the same
    elements. If the brain can be described in terms of neurons and the mind
    is just another way of looking at it then if follows that mind must also be
    able to be described in terms of neurons.

    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 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 14:21:14 GMT