Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA02466 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); 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" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <LAW2-F94GwQ21ju2iDL0000deb8@hotmail.com> Message-Id: <831F8B2E-4B39-11D6-99FA-003065B9A95A@harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.481) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
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