Re: ality

From: Dace (
Date: Wed Feb 27 2002 - 02:32:44 GMT

  • Next message: Dace: "Re: ality (cont'd)"

    Received: by id CAA04130 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 02:37:05 GMT
    Message-ID: <004001c1bf37$0b3650a0$cbc0b3d1@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    Subject: Re: ality
    Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 18:32:44 -0800
    Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003D_01C1BEF3.FB3E9EC0"
    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
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    From: Ray Recchia

    > >Nowhere have I stated that the imprecision of human memory somehow
    > >proves that it's not encoded in the brain. It's a *problem* for mechanistic
    > >theory, which must somehow account for the huge gap in fidelity. I
    > >brought it up, not because it's somehow at the very core of my entire
    > >worldview, but because someone claimed that the fidelity gap was a
    > >problem for my theory, and I was correcting that misunderstanding.
    > It isn't a problem for a 'mechanistic' theory(if that is what you want to
    > label it) though Ted. I would EXPECT that different mediums of storage
    > would have different accuracy rates. It's expected even for different
    > storage media in computers.

    Any data storage system ought to have a minimal level of accuracy far beyond that of human memory. Even if mistakes commonly enter into it, it's not going to involve the wholesale reconstruction of data, as is the case with
    human memory. The point of data storage is that it's not necessary to
    reconstruct the information but merely to retrieve it. That's because it's *stored* instead of reminded.

    > You are wrong and your reasoning is wrong. And
    > the reason that I pointed it out is because when you can't even get
    > something this basic right it also stands to reason that the rest of your
    > thinking suffers from similar blind spots.

    Why, it only stands to reason.

    > > > (And no this isn't a personal attack.
    > >
    > >Yes, it is. It's motivated by unconscious hostility towards anyone who
    > >dares to question your faith. Consciously you're fine and dandy, but
    > >there's a whole world underneath the surface, and if you don't tend to it,
    > >ugly things crop up.
    > Thank you Dr. Freud. I suspect that if I were in your position I might
    > adopt a position like that as defense mechanism. Rather than admit that
    > you wrong after all this effort you can just dismiss all those people who
    > disagree with you as having personal problems.

    I prefer arguing the point directly. However, if you repeatedly demonstrate
    the same unconscious rhetorical tactics, I will point these out. While this
    sort of comment can be extremely valuable, it must remain secondary to the
    argument at hand.

    > You yourself have admitted
    > that you have been kicked out of news groups because you couldn't play
    > nice.

    You sure about that, Ray? Here's the post you're thinking of, from September 2nd (directed to "hemidactylus"):

    As you know, the Sheldrake discussion group degenerated into newage
    chit-chat about a year ago. This past February the moderator of the website launched an email discussion group called Morphic Fields. Having been chased off Webtalk, I took refuge in the new list.

    Perhaps you were thinking I'd been chased off by the more level-headed members of the group. As you can see I was chased off in the sense of being *scared* off. As to that promising new email list, it dissolved after about six months into generic newage free-for-all. The willfully irrational tend to swarm around anything that challenges the dominant ideology, whether or not it has any scientific merit. This, in turn, scares off people who might investigate promising, unorthodox approaches.

    > I just want you out of here because you alienate people with this junk and
    > distracting from intelligent discourse.

    As I said, people resort to ad hominem when they can't argue the point at
    hand. *Prove* it's junk, Ray. Prove it through argumentation.


    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 : Wed Feb 27 2002 - 02:50:38 GMT