Re: Definition please

From: Dace (
Date: Fri Dec 07 2001 - 03:05:36 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T. Smith: "Re: Definition please"

    Received: by id DAA07422 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 03:09:23 GMT
    Message-ID: <004901c17ecc$0c2712c0$f187b2d1@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    References: <> <001d01c17dca$a9e1d520$2a24f4d8@teddace> <p0500190bb8343724f43c@[]>
    Subject: Re: Definition please
    Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 19:05:36 -0800
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
    Precedence: bulk

    From: Wade T. Smith

    > > How would we recognize a "memory" in the brain if we saw
    > > one? Moreover, how would we recognize its absence? In the
    > > sense that it's neither verifiable nor falsifiable, it fails to qualify
    > > as a scientific theory.
    > Sorry, but it's fairly well established, even scientifically, that
    > without a brain, memories don't happen. Recall is verifiable.

    What's verifiable is that a region of neurons is stimulated when a person
    reports the mental act of memory.

    I've already dealth with this point, Wade. That minds don't happen without
    brains means one of two things: 1. Minds are brains. 2. Minds are
    facilitated by brains.

    No one can say for sure it's the former. If it's the latter, then the
    reverse is equally true. Yes, brains make minds. But minds also make
    brains. We are self-determinative.

    > And we have 'seen' memories happen,

    And we have seen the Virgin Mary appear in the sky over Tijuana.


    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 : Fri Dec 07 2001 - 03:16:26 GMT