Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA02435 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Wed, 25 Apr 2001 21:31:40 +0100 Subject: Re: Irreducibility of subjectivity (was Re: Levels of explanation (was Re: Determinism)) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:27:15 -0400 x-sender: firstname.lastname@example.org x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" <email@example.com> To: "memetics list" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-ID: <20010425202718.AAA16966@email@example.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
Hi Robin -
>> Robin thus says that the emergent phenomenon we call self (the engine of
>> subjectivity) is irreducible,
>No way, Jose. Subjectivity is irreducible. "Self" equivocates so that
>little if anything unqualified can be said about it.
Thanks for the rest, too....
This is perhaps where I mostly tend to wander into fogs, since
'subjectivity', even in all the ways I think I understand that you mean
it, is the operation of the self, or, conversely, the 'self' is the
operating of subjectivity, and I don't see where the divide really is
between you and Joe here.
Each would seem to be emergent, and bound to the brain/body, so I can
only think, right now, that I am looking at two phrases for the same
>I'm having trouble understanding "minimalize this subjectivity". Of
>course, in science, we try to maximise objectivity, but you seem to mean
By which I meant limiting the perceptions of the subjective engine- as
all experiments limit the stimuli and possible responses to test a range
of theorized outcomes, minimalizing the response of the subjective engine
is only possible, since it is intact and operating, through limiting the
perceptions of the subject. As in taking the chroma out of a TV image so
that only greys are present, injured persons have served as subjects in
brain studies and other behavioral experiments.
To discover a meme, as I've said before, requires a limiting of the
subject well beyond ethical boundaries, as one would precisely need a
human without cultural input whatsoever, and that would mean a
sensory-deprivation of horrific circumstances. But, by limiting
perceptional stimuli, or using a subject of limited perception, might,
perhaps, be a way of control in a memetic experiment? I don't know, but
that was what I was pointing at with 'minimalizing'.
>I think you might be taking the tipping point too literally.
Perhaps, but, with subjectivity and the self, certainly this point is
reached, and indeed, what we are calling the self, and subjectivity (what
the self does), is dependent upon having reached this point. Yes? What
you say below seems to say yes -
>It is absolutely impossible that any discovery of
>science could take [the essence of subjectivity] away.
>It cannot, logically, be delusion, because,
>as Joe says, without that "essential I" there is nothing to be deluded.
Although it could all be levels of delusion, I suppose.
>We only know the world through the mind.
I'm pretty sure the main reason I'm here on this list is because I
disagree with that. Not that I'm saying there is any _other_ way to
perceive knowledge of the world other than through the mind (by which I
mean the brain/body/sensory apparatus that is the human being on this
planet), but that the knowing of this world can be found from _other_
minds, by way of artifacts created by other minds attempting to explain
what their mind knows. So, yes, not only can we know the world through
minds, but the artifacts of minds are all around us. And it is these
artifacts of minds that we can easily call memes.
The behaviors of mind are also knowledges of the world.
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 : Wed Apr 25 2001 - 21:35:01 BST