Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA04258 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sun, 15 Apr 2001 21:58:21 +0100 From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 16:01:02 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The Tipping Point Message-ID: <3AD9C5BE.20188.2588FA@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010415144928.B787@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3AD891ED.20672.5777E8@localhost>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 06:07:41PM -0500 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On 15 Apr 2001, at 14:49, Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 06:07:41PM -0500, email@example.com wrote:
> > On 14 Apr 2001, at 9:46, Robin Faichney wrote: > > > The tipping
> point phenomenon occurs at the level of the pile, > > obviously.
> Individual grains don't have tipping points, and nobody > > claims
> they do. But you claim that, through "top-down causation", the > >
> tipping point exerts an influence on the individual grain, while I > >
> say, at that level, what is happening is simply interaction between >
> > individual grains (and gravity etc.). Nothing in that paragraph (or
> > > in anything else you've written that I've seen) supports your
> claim. > > > Those 'individual grains' of yours are supported by other
> grains, > which are supported by others, eventually involving the
> entire pile.
> And how, exactly, does that statement of the obvious support your
> claim that individual grains are affected by the tipping point?
As all is affected by each, each is in turn affected by all.
> > > > Next, you're gonna be
> > > > telling me that you can take the components of a TV apart and
> > > > still watch BBC. What happens to those signals depends upon a
> > > > global interrelation between those electronic components, and
> > > > changing even one of them can alter the system beyond the point
> > > > of signal receptivity.
> > >
> > > You're confusing scepticism regarding vertical causation with
> > > reductionism. I've said several times that I regard the tipping
> > > point phenomenon as being just as real as are the individual
> > > grains. I'm not a reductionist. I also think a TV show is as real
> > > as a resistor. But what you're saying is that the individual
> > > components of the TV are affected by the type of program that's
> > > on.
> > >
> > Actually, they are; the received signal tells the electron gun where
> > to aim its beams to produce the picture, and what frequencies, in
> > what proportions relative to each other, issue from the speakers
> > (absolute volume and brightness are, of course, locally controlled).
> > Do you mean to tell me that your TV doesn't work that way?
> There is a very clear train of causation, not only in the TV itself,
> but even in your description, from internal components to picture and
> sound. NOT vice versa! I think you'd be wise to drop this metaphor,
That is because, unlike the TV, we are dynamically recursive, and
feed back (and forward). A TV cannot change the picture sent to it
by a camera, but we can take actions which result in perceptual
change, just as all perception involves some action.
> Robin Faichney
> Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org
> (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)
> 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 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 : Sun Apr 15 2001 - 22:01:25 BST