Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id GAA15538 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 22 Jan 2002 06:03:55 GMT Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:59:30 -0800 Message-Id: <200201220559.g0M5xUI05904@mail13.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116) X-Originating-Ip: [22.214.171.124] From: "Joe Dees" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Sensory and sensibility Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
> "Dace" <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> Re: Sensory and sensibilityDate: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:19:30 -0800
>From: Joe Dees
>> >> What an active imaginition these guys had. But
>> >> different times, different memes.
>> >Different times, same memes. We're still faced with exactly the same
>> >debate, now characterized in terms of "intension and extension." For
>> >instance, the intension of telephone is the idea that each of us
>> >comprehends in our mind, while the extension of telephone is the set of
>> > actual telephones in the world. Plato argued that reality is
>> >(transcendent) while Aristotle countered that reality is extensional
>> >(immanent). For Plato the essence of the telephone is our idea of it.
>> >Aristotle its essence is physically inherent to it. This question is
>> >unresolved. The modern outlook is primarily Platonic. Newtonian Laws
>> >a streamlined version of Platonic Forms. Instead of having a Form for
>> >each object is a manifestation, we have a small set of laws, and in
>> >these laws, matter naturally forms into the various objects of the world.
>> >Like Plato, we take a mathematical approach. We don't believe anything
>> >until we've seen the math, be it electromagnetism, relativity, or chaos.
>> >It's the math that makes it so.
>> >The only real challenge to the dominance of Platonism in Western thought
>> >was Darwin. Like Aristotle, Darwin regarded matter as inherently
>> >There's no deity shaping the species. Our forms arise from within.
>> >Organisms are material entities which creatively adapt to environmental
>> >conditions, and these adaptations are passed on to future species. Alas,
>> >the Darwinian view was entirely discredited early in the 20th century.
>> >new view, known as neo-Darwinism but better known as Weismannism, does
>> >away with the concept of adaptation and replaces it with "exaptation."
>> >mutation in our genes causes a new trait to emerge. Then the organism
>> >use of the newly-acquired trait when the need for it happens to arise.
>> >there's no creativity on the part of the organism, just a mechanical
>> >in which randomly altered genes are selected by environmental conditions.
>> >In conformance with Newton, matter is under the control of mathematical,
>> >deterministic processes.
>> >While the ancients struggled with the issue of materialism versus
>> >the moderns loudly proclaim the former while silently assuming the
>> >Our approach reflects the survival strategy of the idealism meme, which
>> >propagates by cloaking itself in its exact opposite. It also exploits
>> >male-centric attitude. Matter is another word for mother. The earth is
>> >traditionally regarded as feminine, while the sky is masculine. That
>> >intelligent idea dominates helpless and random matter is sky-god
>> >In this mental environment, there was no possibility that Darwin's meme
>> >would be selected.
>> Of course, the unfounded assumption here is the one that automatically
>assigns transcendence to intensionality (mental memes). They are instead
>manifestly part of the immanent world, as dynamic pattern-configurations of
>neurons, dendrites, axons and synapses, encoding semantic content. Their
>activation when an individual is performing mental tasks can be registered
>on PET scans and fMRI. No ephemeral skygodisms necessary, just the
>measuring technology that good science has allowed us to create, combined
>with experimentation under controlled conditions utilizing the scientific
>In order to render the transcendent immanent, not only would mind have to be
>reduced to brain, but the laws of nature would have to be reduced to nature.
>No one is suggesting that. Atoms don't contain within them the laws
>governing their actions, any more than neurons contain the abstract thoughts
>according to which they behave.
The 'laws of nature' are equations which express purported relations betwen parts of nature, and may be encoded in either physics and mathematics tomes or in the axonal/dendritic/neuronal pattern-configurations of the brains of mathematicians and physicists, allowing them to cognitively entertain these equations (as descriptive of the relations they purport to represent). The laws governing the actions of atoms (and other natural phenomena) are abstracted from multiple scientific studies of their behavior when they are experimentally manipulated under controlled conditions and the results are measured.
>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)
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
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 Jan 22 2002 - 06:11:48 GMT