Re: Abstractism

From: Joe Dees (
Date: Fri Feb 01 2002 - 07:03:24 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: Abstractism"

    Received: by id HAA06602 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 07:09:07 GMT
    Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:03:24 -0800
    Message-Id: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain
    Content-Disposition: inline
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
    X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116)
    X-Originating-Ip: []
    From: "Joe Dees" <>
    Subject: Re: Abstractism
    Precedence: bulk

    ('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)

    > "Dace" <> <> Re: AbstractismDate: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:04:11 -0800
    >> >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.
    I think that just about everyone here (with the possible exception of you) would agree that information is encoded in configuration.
    >> >> >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.
    We are spatiotemporal, and the past we retain and the future we imagine are matter/energy meaning-configurations encoded in the connection patterns of our cortical neurons.
    >> > 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.
    The spatiotemporal universe has been around for at least 12 billion years, so you must be very old to predate its genesis. And since the universe is still here, you cannot presently be posterior to a far-flung future.
    >> > 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 spatiotemporality 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
    >inextricablly 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.
    Neither the spatial nor the temporal aspects of spatiotemporality are afterthoughts of any invisible transcendental light-beings; they are co-primordial and irretrieveably intertwined, and irreduceable to bifurcated components, because the aspects of spatiotemporality are distinguishable yet inseparable. And the dynamic nested dialectic of matter/energy changing in position and configuration in spacetime is neither static nor absolutely determined, despite your chicken-little horror warnings. The future remains not yet, as the past remains no longer, and not totally determined by the present; we use (with varying degrees of success) our understanding of causality to effect the realization of our (partially) freely chosen alternatives, and thus to in part determine our futures.
    >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! 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 : Fri Feb 01 2002 - 07:17:39 GMT