Re: ality

From: Dace (
Date: Sun Feb 03 2002 - 18:05:21 GMT

  • Next message: Dace: "Re: Words and memes"

    Received: by id SAA11996 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 18:10:01 GMT
    Message-ID: <003c01c1acdd$596ab5c0$5cc1b3d1@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    Subject: Re: ality
    Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 10:05:21 -0800
    Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0039_01C1AC9A.4A3346A0"
    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

    > >> >Joe Dees:
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> OF COURSE memories are stored in the brain, but cortical neurons are
    > >plastic, and can easily relearn that which was excised,
    > >>>>
    > >
    > >How are neurons supposed to encode recently destroyed memories when these
    > >memories no longer exist? Clearly, this is not an option.
    > >
    > You said that they were able to *relearn* them easily, so obviously, it is.

    Scuse me? Here's what I said:

    "The attempt to scientifically demonstrate the existence of memory traces or
    'engrams' in the brain goes all the way back to the 20s, when Karl Lashley
    experimented on conditioned learning in rats, monkeys, and chimpanzees.
    He would train them to remember the correct reaction to a given stimulus
    and then remove the portion of the brain utilized in the conditioned response.
    The animals would quickly regain their former memories, despite the
    permanent loss of brain tissue."

    The word "relearn" appeared only in your response, as quoted above.

    > If you are saying that once the appropriate identified location was
    *completely* excised, that the memory or action was supposedly able to occur
    in its entirety the FIRST time as well as it did before the excision, I want
    URL or book references, with pagination, so's I can sell an article refuting
    such ludicrous nonsense.

    You might benefit from an introductory textbook on the brain. Lashley's
    article, "In search of the engram," appeared in the Symposium of the Society
    for Experimental Biology, 4:454-483. His student, Karl Pribram, pursued the
    possibility of holistically-stored memories in Languages of the Brain, 1971.

    > >Einstein denied the existence of a "philosopher's time," i.e. time as it
    > >exists intrinsically in accord with our subjective perception of it. No
    > >duration.
    > >
    > I deny the existence of your bifurcated time split off from the spatial
    aspects of the manifold; it is the pseudophilosopher's pristinely
    separate-from-space introspective 'time' (a Bergsonian mistake corrected by
    the more disciplined and attentive phenomenologists, following Edmund

    Bergson did not argue for an introspective time separate from a physical
    time. He argued, instead, that physics doesn't view time as it is intrinsically
    but only understands it externally, that is, from the point of view of space.

    > I actually do not believe that anyone can comprehend your bizarre

    In other words, you're admitting you haven't comprehended what I've written.
    If you don't understand me, how do you know I'm wrong? Again, it's clear
    that your interest here is not so much to engage my ideas but to exterminate

    > I'm conducting a quite honest discussion,

    Of course you are, Joe. Of course you are.


    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 : Sun Feb 03 2002 - 18:18:38 GMT