Re: Definition please

From: Dace (
Date: Tue Dec 11 2001 - 00:46:12 GMT

  • Next message: Ray Recchia: "Re: Definition please"

    Received: by id AAA14097 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:50:04 GMT
    Message-ID: <001c01c181dd$3cff3bc0$a224f4d8@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    Subject: Re: Definition please
    Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:46:12 -0800
    Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0019_01C1819A.2D4926C0"
    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
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    From: William Benzon

    > > 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 has no kind of nervous system whatever.

    Of course it does. Anything that links input to output is a kind of nervous
    system, regardless of how primitive. Besides, your definition of mind is so
    broad it would include any system that functions as a whole-- biological or
    technological, nervous system or not.

    If the mind is the functioning of the entire nervous system, why wouldn't the
    global operation of any complex object constitute a mind? What is it that's
    unique about a brain that associates it with mentality?


    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 : Tue Dec 11 2001 - 00:56:24 GMT