From: Chris Taylor (Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu 19 Jun 2003 - 10:40:44 GMT
Wade what is an 'original' idea then? (And can we try to stay clear of
the meaning/intentionality minefield plz.) What if you never tell
anyone, but that (pseudo)original idea recasts everything you previously
'thought'? Where does this fit in a model of the interactions of individuals? If Performance is not a model of mind (I assume it isn't because you hand off to CogPsych at that point), then I suppose it's a non-question, but hey I never saw dumbness as a bar to action (although I think I have mild Tourette's).
And (from another thread) I must admit to being alarmed by how close
Dennett turned out to be to the EvoPsych nutters (and, actually, how
poor his biology was in a couple of places). I would strongly contest
the assertion that my meme-fundamentalist view leads to robotic
determinism - we can quite happily have (the illusion of) free will
because the interactions of our unbelievably complex experiences is
effectively unpredictable (like the weather). However, like the weather,
it is _in principle_ predictable if you have literally complete and
perfect knowledge (which is impossible). And hand-waving quantum excuses
for those post-dualists who fear the consequences be damned.
And 'knock up' yeah lol. Apparently some onetime public school boy at
Eton announced on the TV in the US that he had been Lord Carrington's
fag at school...
At that venue :) it means go-fer/gopher if you're wondering.
Wade T. Smith wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 06:22 PM, Keith wrote:
>>> The crux of the matter is that the information must be in a mind in
>>> for replication to occur.
>> For the information to have any *real world consequences*, I completely
>> agree with you it must be in a mind, just like a gene has to be in a cell
>> for it to have real world consequences.
> Equine defecations, both of 'em.
> For anything to have 'real world consequences' it has to consequent the
> real world- it has to be out here. Information in a mind is nowhere but
> in a mind. What a farce your model is!
> The gene in a cell has no real world consequences except to maintain the
> existence of the body it is in. Only when half of this genetic material
> combines with half of the genetic material from the disparate sex of the
> species does change happen. Again, what a farce your model is- as if
> evolution is happening in one organism.
> It takes two to tango, and, that means two minds in the real world, not
> one mind with a bunch of useless facts in it.
> - 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)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Taylor (firstname.lastname@example.org) http://pedro.man.ac.uk/ »people»chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ =============================================================== 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) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 19 Jun 2003 - 10:49:45 GMT