From: Francesca S. Alcorn (email@example.com)
Date: Mon 01 Mar 2004 - 19:40:44 GMT
>Yeah I'd say that was a fair summary so far :)
>Although I have to strap on a flag about environments of various kinds.
>I (in answer to the other two replies to this post) _am_ one of
>those fundamentalists, although I have a rather different definition
>of the term meme (necessarily, cos I can't think of a better word of
>my own). But yes I am one.
>That doesn't make me anti-social science! That would be like a
>phycisist denigrating biology because it's basically all physics at
>bottom! There are appropriate methods to particular levels of focus.
>Credo: I do believe in a mind built of tiny patterns, which copy
>repeatedly internally a la Dennett, and which form the building
>blocks of successive levels of structure -- like physics begets
>chemistry begets life begets culture if you get me -- each built of
>the blocks of stuff from the level below. So measuring nerve
>impulses or oxygen uptake, then trying to connect that with thoughts
>(not that anyone was) would be like trying to understand why 'The
>Office' is funny by looking at a slowed-down trace of the firing
>pattern of the gun(s) in your TV's CRT.
I just got the "Physics of Consciousness" for Christmas. Haven't
read it yet, but supposedly it does just that.
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 2.1.5 : Mon 01 Mar 2004 - 19:50:51 GMT