Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA00351 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 7 May 2001 16:23:46 +0100 Message-Id: <firstname.lastname@example.org> X-Sender: email@example.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 10:11:19 -0500 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: Mark Mills <email@example.com> Subject: Re: Information In-Reply-To: <20010507143713.AAA6438@camailp.harvard.edu@[126.96.36.199 5]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
At 10:36 AM 5/7/01 -0400, you wrote:
>So, the equation does not balance unless it states- 'neural memetics is
>intentionless evolutionary psychology'?
Let me answer with a question.
Do you think there is an 'explanatory gap' between physical laws and
consciousness? Put another way, do you think one can deduce and explain a
conscious state via a priori physical laws? Put in terms of Zeno's
paradox, if Achilles is the greatest physicist on earth and every
experiment gets him half way to an explanation of consciousness, do his
investigations into physical laws ever get him 'all the way' to an
explanation of consciousness? Some would say 'Achilles the physicist'
never crosses the 'explanatory gap.'
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 May 07 2001 - 16:27:23 BST