Re: mind

From: Dace (
Date: Sun Feb 24 2002 - 20:10:57 GMT

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

    Received: by id UAA26283 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:15:11 GMT
    Message-ID: <004701c1bd6f$5fb37320$5124f4d8@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: mind
    Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 12:10:57 -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

    From: Steve Drew

    > >>> The point is that the mind, not the brain, imperfectly recalls the
    > >
    > >> 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
    > >> presence where is it located - the pineal gland perhaps? :-)
    > >
    > > To attempt to reduce the mind to the brain is to imply duality. After
    > > 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.

    Which is why I'm not a Cartesian.

    > > 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.

    Let's say you flip a coin. It comes up heads. To avoid dualism, do you
    say, "Well, it came up headstails. I guess that means I winlose." That we
    can linguistically distinguish two things doesn't mean we're ontologically
    distinguishing them. That I refer to "mind" and "brain" doesn't mean I
    regard them as being separate.

    > >> 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 memetic

    Memes, whether conceptual or behavioral, are bounded on one side by genes
    and on the other side by intentions.


    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 - 20:26:12 GMT