Re: Abstractism

From: Dace (
Date: Thu Jan 31 2002 - 06:04:11 GMT

  • Next message: Dace: "Re: Abstractism"

    Received: by id GAA04188 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 06:08:51 GMT
    Message-ID: <00d101c1aa1d$1ba8b7e0$6324f4d8@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: Abstractism
    Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:04:11 -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: Joe Dees
    > >
    > >> >> Representation is not found in the matter and energy per se, but
    > >> >in their meaningful configuration.
    > >> >>>>
    > >> >
    > >> >Funny that you dismissed Robin Faichney when you're using
    > >> >"representation" to mean exactly what he means by "information."
    > >> >
    > >> Actually, umm, no. For Robin, information does not have to be
    > >either meaningful or representational. Representation is a forteriori
    > >meaningful, as representation is itself a meaningful relation to that
    > >which the trepresentation re-presents.
    > >>>>
    > >
    > >Robin claims information is contained in material "patterns." You claim
    > >representation is contained in material "configurations." You're arguing
    > >exactly the same thing, yet imagining you're having this thunderous
    > >You're not discoursing so much as butting heads to establish hierarchy.
    > >
    > No, it is a central and fundamental disagreement; he sees no necessity for
    either a meanong-giving self or meaningful information in memetics; I
    contend that memes are irreduceably semantic, and that we are irretrieveably
    not only emergent conscious self-awarenesses, but that these
    self-awarenesses are apodictically meaning-driven.

    And both of you accept the notion that "information" or "representation" is
    in some way a physical property. That's what we were talking about, before
    you derailed there.

    > >> >There's no representation in the universe, i.e. spacetime.
    > >> >
    > >> But you are in the universe, and so is my computer screen, and yours.
    > >
    > >Not exactly. I am in time, as expressed in my mind.
    > >
    > You must, then, believe that everyone on this list is of one mind, for
    they all read your posts, unless, of course, they delete them unread.

    Oh, yeah. All of this is trashed. No one is paying any attention to this.

    > Furthermore, you must believe that we are all in the same place
    simultaneously (violating a fundamental law of physics), for us to be in the
    same 'time' (even ignoring the fact that we read our mail at different times
    from different locations, that is, from different spatiotemporal positions,
    around this globe).

    Once again you assume that to be temporal is to be somehow outside
    spatiotemporality. To be in time is to be present (spacetime) as well as
    retaining the past and pursuing goals.

    > > I am both prior to and posterior to the universe of spacetime.
    > >
    > Your parents, who inhabited this spatiotemporal universe before you were
    born, would be forced to disagree (unless you're now doing the solipsistic

    We're getting to the point where your nonanswers, delivered with the same
    belligerence regardless of their irrelevance, are getting tiresome. My
    parents were prior and posterior to their presence, as I am to mine, thanks.

    > > That is, I have memory and (free) will.
    > >
    > Both entirely consistent with, and in fact predicated upon, our existence
    in a spatiotemporal matter/energy universe.

    If spaciotemporality is a static, four dimensional universe, complete from
    one end (past) to the other (future), then, no, there's no freedom or
    novelty in the universe. But if you mean simply that the present is
    inextricalbly spatial as well as temporal, then indeed, our freedom is
    entirely consistent with spacetime. That is, time is consistent with
    spacetime as it actually is rather than our idea of it. The "time" of
    spacetime is not the whole of time but only its spatial, externalized
    aspect. Time is also intrinsic and irreducible. It's not simply a fourth
    dimension of space, tacked on as an afterthought.


    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 : Thu Jan 31 2002 - 06:17:36 GMT