Re: ality

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Sat Mar 02 2002 - 02:47:35 GMT

  • Next message: Dace: "Re: Why Memeoids?"

    Received: by id CAA14141 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 02:53:01 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Scott Chase" <>
    Subject: Re: ality
    Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 21:47:35 -0500
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2002 02:47:36.0361 (UTC) FILETIME=[9C3C6990:01C1C194]
    Precedence: bulk

    >From: Ray Recchia <>
    >Subject: Re: ality
    >Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 04:06:18 -0500
    >At 05:34 PM 2/28/2002 -0800, you wrote:
    >> > >Hi Dace -
    >> > >
    >> > >>Any data storage system ought to have a minimal level of accuracy far
    >> > >>beyond that of human memory.
    >> > >
    >> > >No argument.
    >> > >
    >> > >But, who ever said that memory is a data storage system to bring it
    >> > >this comparison?
    >> > >
    >> > >- Wade
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > Mightn't it be more a record of lessons learned, rather than actual
    >> > sensory records? Then the learning would be modified, but the
    >> > experiences themselves would be degraded.
    >> >
    >> > Each new experience would be a sort of software upgrade.
    >> >
    >> > frankie
    >>Our model of memory has to account for the fact that we seem to remember
    >>experiences themselves and not just what we learned from them. Often the
    >>learning takes place only in retrospect, after we've recalled the event a
    >>few times and mulled it over.
    >And therein lies yet another problem with your hypothesis besides the
    >location problem, the mechanism problem, the short term vs. long term
    >problem and the accounting for brain damage problem. This is that we not
    >only remember events, we remember how to do things independent of any
    >events at all. If memory came from peering into the past we would only
    >remember how to do things by recalling a past time in which we did
    >them. As I am typing this sentence I am not remembering how I typed at a
    >particular time. I am only remembering how to type. Further I have no
    >recollection of the last time I discussed the concept of democracy nor in
    >fact can I recall any particular instance off hand in which I discussed
    >democracy. However I still remember and understand the concept of
    >democracy. Of course since you came up its dark back in time so you only
    >peer at the forms using the imagination as explanation for why things are
    >remember dimly so I am certain you have an explanation for this as well.
    >But all a priori anyway.
    All predicated on the assertation that the standard mechanistic, materialist
    monistic view is wrong and the smug knowledge that no matter what steps have
    been taken in elucidating the mysteries of memory, there's always that
    residuum where the morphic tinkerbell can hover.

    It's the creationist tactic, just carried over to another field (no pun
    intended) of study.

    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

    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 Mar 02 2002 - 03:03:06 GMT