Re: ality

From: Joe Dees (
Date: Sat Feb 02 2002 - 01:56:49 GMT

  • Next message: Joe Dees: "Re: Abstractism"

    Received: by id CAA08362 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 02:02:36 GMT
    Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 17:56:49 -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: ality
    Precedence: bulk

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

    > "Dace" <> <> Re: alityDate: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:06:01 -0800
    >> > > Dimensions are just ways of looking at
    >> > > space by comparing one arbitrarily chosen section of it to another.
    >> > > Again, the comparison takes place in the brain and not in space.
    >> > >
    >> > > Grant
    >> >
    >> >How can it take place in the brain, a spatial object, when it doesn't
    >> >even take place in space?
    >> >
    >> >Ted
    >> Because that's what the brain does.
    >How do you know that? All we know about the brain is that it consists of
    >nerves that transmit macromolecules across synapses. We know it interacts
    >with the world because some of these nerves are afferent (incoming) and some
    >are efferent (outgoing). We know with certainty that its activities are
    >essential for all of our mental functioning. What we don't know is that it
    >represents the world. In fact, this is impossible, since it's clearly part
    >of the world. Representation of the world is by necessity removed from it.
    >This is an ironclad principle of logic. That which represents cannot be an
    >aspect of that which is represented. The brain is a physical object.
    >Therefore it does not represent physical objects, either itself or any
    >Your gross misunderstanding of the aboutness distinction between the representer and the represented amazes and appalls me. There is a world external to each and every brain, and that world is indeed presented to the brain via perceptual stimuli and represented in an encoded fashion in stored memory configurations. The human brain ain't a rock, it's the most complex entity we know of. It is an electrochemical wonder, transmitting no only all kinds of differing mneurotransmitters across those synapses (acetylcholine, dopamine, epinephrine and norepinephrine, serotonin, glutamate, glycine, aspartate, GABA, leu-enkephalin and more than 40 peptides, plus others) but also spikes of electric potential (EPSP's and IPSP's)along the dendrites and axons. It contains 3 billion neurons in its three pounds, and each neuron is connected to on average 50,000 others. By the way, there are not just efferent and afferent neurons facing off across the Sylvan fissure; there are also vast !
    areas of associative cortical neurons in between.
    You seem to maintain that nothing in the world can represent anything else there. I guess representation is your vedantist god's job, or perhaps the task of your sheldrakean morphic beam from the supernatural realm.
    >> Along with recognizing recurring patterns, it compares them with
    >> previous patterns stored in the brain.
    >No one has ever detected information stored in the brain. Information is a
    >property of the mind. The only thing we can say for sure about the brain is
    >that its activities are essential to mental activity. To assert anything
    >more than this is unscientific.
    It has been empirically and repeatedly shown under controlled conditions that to stimulate neuronal pathways causes the apprehension of specific memories. Of course, you insist upon royally and regally violating Occam's Razor by attributing same to some source that magically and mystically knows where and when to beam each memory for each stimulated pathway, but believers rarely are consistent in their use of the logic they pirport to invoke.
    >> I know they're stored in the brain
    >> because we don't have to go outside the brain to find them.
    >Who says you're inside your brain? You exist in your mind. Your thoughts
    >and memories and desires all exist in your mind. On this point we can be
    >certain. By definition we exist in our minds. But the claim that we exist
    >in our brains is not true by definition. It must be empirically verified,
    >and no one has yet accomplished this task. Given the time and resources
    >devoted to this effort, it's unlikely anyone will ever do so.
    Our selves or our minds emerge from the dynamically recursive material substrate of our brains; no mind has ever been discovered without a brain, and when the brain dies, the mind disappears, never to be heard from again. Or have you been attending Madam Morphia's Mystic Seance Sessions again?
    >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 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 02:12:58 GMT