Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA08834 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 7 Dec 2001 19:20:36 GMT Message-ID: <003501c17f53$b8f71c20$d286b2d1@teddace> From: "Dace" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3102A6D182@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Definition please Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:16:48 -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 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> <There's just no
> > central processing area for language.>
> Didn't Ray just mention Broca's area/region?
Yes, he did. Broca's area has been known for a long time, as has
Wernicke's. These are but two of numerous regions of the cerebrum involved
with language comprehension and production. I take it you're not familiar
with the binding problem. You might want to do a search on the web. You'll
find it's a well-recognized dilemma in brain science.
> Look for example at those memory experts- the people who can
> memorise hundreds of phone numbers etc.- their way of doing this involves
> creating a narrative, using images to represent numbers/words/objects
> (whatever it is they are trying to remember). By putting things into a
> narrative context, and therefore an order, it enables them- and anyone
> who tries this out incidentally- to recall a large amount of information.
> This offers a pretty good indicator that there are processes of storage
It's when you can't remember something that you have to retrieve stored
information concerning it. But you're statement isn't merely illogical.
There's just no reason why existence of memory in a natural state should
mean an artificial memory system came about, essentially, by accident.
Seems rather unlikely. Could be true, but there's no reason to assume,
without evidence, that it's true.
> I don't see you offering a body (or even a piece)
> of evidence for your view other than saying "Ahh... this isn't known
> therefore the whole of that approach must be wrong and I'm right".
Sheldrake offers a unified theory of memory. Organic (intrinsic) forms
resonate with previous similar forms. This is true of genes, proteins,
organelles, cells, tissues, organs, the brain, and the body as a whole. At
each level, the organic system is guided by its resonance with its own past
activity and that of its predecessors. The body, not the brain, is what
remembers how to ride a bike. That doesn't mean the information is somehow
stored in our muscles. There is no information. The body simply operates
the same way it always has before when riding a bike. Insofar as it
explains memory, rather than merely explaining it away, Sheldrake's is
clearly the default theory. Until physicalist researchers can describe
neural memory with something approaching the level of sophistication and
detail that engineers can describe artificial memory, their theory will
remain a curiosity.
> what you appear to be arguing requires a complete rejection of
> conventional understanding of time and space, biology and pretty much
> other discipline under the sun.
I generally accept the authority of expertise. However, I reject the notion
that time, life, memory, novelty, consciousness, and freedom are
> You're making the fatal error that many make in pseudo-science,
> assuming that because a phenomena is not immediately explainable
> it must mean that the believer's interpretation is true, even if that
> requires the rest of our knowledge to be utterly flawed (e.g. a video
> of a UFO that can't be demonstrated to be faked, automatically
> becomes an interstellar spacecraft piloted by intelligent aliens to
> many ufologists).
The physicalist approach to memory is very much akin to the widespread
belief in alien visitors. In both cases, there's simply no hard evidence
whatsoever. Nothing tangible, yet everyone believes it. Of course, it
depends on what circle you travel with. Memes are reinforced by regular
exposure to people who believe in them. Not everyone believes brains are
computers or UFOs are flying saucers, but if you run around with people who
do, you're liable to believe it as well.
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 - 19:26:55 GMT