Re: memetics-digest V1 #1011

From: Wade T.Smith (
Date: Mon Apr 08 2002 - 22:42:23 BST

  • Next message: Richard Brodie: "RE:"

    Received: by id WAA02466 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 22:48:32 +0100
    Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 17:42:23 -0400
    Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #1011
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
    From: "Wade T.Smith" <>
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.481)
    Precedence: bulk

    On Monday, April 8, 2002, at 04:20 , Grant Callaghan wrote:

    > There is no seeing without thinking

    There is no visual perception without nerve activity, but, personally, I
    do not call all such activity 'thought'. There is a great deal of
    perception (observation) done as mere nerve activity.

    > We can't divorce these preconceptions from our observations.

    Here is where we digress, as I would say there is a long list of
    precedents involving observation sans preconception. I would even go as
    far as declaring that 'observation', as something meaning actually
    seeing and dealing with what is in front of your face, demands the
    release of preconceptions. What is 'observed' while being stained with
    preconceptions is faulty, and not really observed at all, but, refused.

    > Past experience gives us a preconceived bias about what category to put
    > the signals in

    The very act of putting these signals in to _anything_ is a falsifying
    of the observation.

    > I would say that observation is a form of thought.

    Purposeful and intentional observation is indeed a discipline of thought.

    Sensory stimulation is not.

    - Wade

    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 : Mon Apr 08 2002 - 22:59:30 BST