Re: Definition please

From: Dace (
Date: Fri Dec 07 2001 - 19:28:29 GMT

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

    Received: by id TAA08882 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 19:32:19 GMT
    Message-ID: <003b01c17f55$5a7131c0$d286b2d1@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: Definition please
    Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:28:29 -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

    William Benzon wrote:

    > Mind: The dynamics of the entire brain, perhaps even the entire
    > nervous system, including the peripheral nervous system,
    > constitutes the mind.
    > If that's so, then why shouldn't it be true of every known organic system?
    > Do the dynamics of an entire eco-system constitute a mind? Do the
    > of an entire cell constitute the mind of the cell?

    Why would you want to say such things? My definition spoke to nervous
    systems, not systems in general. I don't see why anyone would want to leap
    to such a conclusion.


    It's a logical point. You've cast your net too widely.

    The problem is that you can't demonstrate why, if a brain is accompanied by
    a mind, an electric piano wouldn't have one as well.

    Where do you draw the line? After all, an electric piano has a kind of
    nervous system. It has input and output. It functions dynamically as a
    whole. So, does it have a mind or not?


    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 - 19:41:09 GMT