Re: mind

From: Steve Drew (
Date: Sun Feb 24 2002 - 09:37:51 GMT

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

    Received: by id JAA25048 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 09:45:39 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
    Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 09:37:51 +0000
    Subject: Re: mind
    From: Steve Drew <>
    To: Jom-emit <>
    Message-ID: <>
    Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Feb 2002 09:40:14.0055 (UTC) FILETIME=[427E3770:01C1BD17]
    Precedence: bulk

    Hi Ted

    > Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:25:30 -0800
    > From: "Dace" <>
    > Subject: Re: mind
    > Hi Steve.
    >>> The point is that the mind, not the brain, imperfectly recalls the past
    >> I have only done very basic philosophy, but as i understood it the
    >> mind/body duality has still not come up with an answer to the problem of
    >> what happens to the 'mind' when the body does not exist. Further, if mind
    >> is distinct from brain then how does something that has no physical
    >> presence influence that which is physical. If it has a physical presence
    >> where is it located - the pineal gland perhaps? :-)
    > To attempt to reduce the mind to the brain is to imply duality. After all,
    > you can't reduce tails to heads, can you? They're already the same thing--
    > just
    > viewed from different perspectives.<

    I was under the impression that Descartes duality was the separation of mind
    and body, hence my query. Duality refers to separate things not two sides of
    the same coin.

    > The mind is the brain's living history,
    > both influencing it and being influenced by it. The brain is the mind's
    > current spatiomaterialization. Two sides of the same coin.

    This makes no sense to me i'm afraid. To me the brain and mind are
    inseparable. There are no sides to look at.

    >>> Keep in mind that the original mechanistic philosophy was theological,
    >>> with God as the great "Mechanick."
    >> I thought we left that idea behind in the C19TH. Its relevance to now
    > is..?
    > Ray was accusing me of being a crypto-creationist. So I reminded him that
    > his entire wordlview is rooted in 17th century Protestant ideology.
    >>> It's a meme when it becomes habituated among a a group of people.
    >> No, it is a meme if it is passed between two people.
    > Not necessarily. It might simply be an idea.
    >>> Memes are habitual behaviors and ideas shared by groups of people.
    >> No, some memes are habitual behaviours but only of they are passed on.
    > In other words, shared by groups of people.
    >> Though to me, in any group of people you will not find 100% behavioural
    >> accord except in rare circumstance within a group.
    > Each of us retains our individuality even as we're embraced by the group.
    >> Secondly, not all habitual behaviours are memetic. Every so
    >> often i find i have the need to eat. The only behavioural aspect is where
    > i
    >> will have lunch and what :-)
    > Right. That you eat certain things at certain times and places is an
    > example of your own personal habits. However, our shared, cultural habits
    > do constrain your choices in these matters.

    Not quite what i had in mind. What i meant that certain repetitive
    behaviours are the same in any culture, such as eating sleeping etc. How we
    go about them is cultural. But you would not term eating or sleeping as
    memetic behaviours. Hence not all habitual bahaviours are not necessarily
    > Ted



    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 : Sun Feb 24 2002 - 09:55:29 GMT