Hi,
Dan Plante <dplante@home.com> writes:
<<
First of all, Eric, I want to thank you for responding quickly to a
query that apparently conveyed intense interest on my part. I also
appreciate the fact that you saved me a lot of "leg work" on this
issue with the concise complement of relevant quotes. As I believe I
mentioned before, I have precious little time for this kind of thing.
>>
No problem -- and you're welcome.
<<
Anyway, I read the entire post first, and it quickly became apparent
what the real problem is here. The problem isn't conceptual, but
contextual (AKA: point of view). In other words, both points of view
are right (within their own implicit context), but also both wrong,
because they fail to take other valid points of view into
consideration.
>>
Hmmm. Maybe. I don't know. I've read your entire post, and I'll just cut to the chase here with a big snip
{snip}
<<
I'm sure that none of the parties involved would assert that the very
real phenomenon of mind is a "myth" or an "illusion".
>>
See, this is where I think you're wrong. Dennett is famous for his book _Consciousness Explained_ (which I haven't read, although it's high on the list), but which *does* maintain that consciousness is an illusion. I've also seen several brain studies which concluded that "conscious" attention, per say, always lags *behind* the other thought process by about a half a second; meaning that consciousness is not in control: it is in "observation", if you get my drift. The hardcore of memetic theory is that consciousness (our preception of "mind") is an illusion created by our memes becuase it benefits them to trick us -- witness how well Richards memes have done since he got to "level 3"!
In a certain sense, everybody draws the line on the universal acid that is Darwinism at some point -- many people have drawn it here, and Blackmore isn't going to let them get away with it. Is there nothing sacred?
<<
Physicists had to come to terms with the wave/particle nature of
photons, I suggest we do the same.
>>
My (new) understanding is that this ad-hoc theory of wave/particle duality is not the best understanding of quantum mechanics -- it is a desperate ploy to avoid admitting the truth: that quantum mechanics describes a multi-verse. The "wave" nature of particles which we can observe is the result of inteference between other universes very similar to our own -- but the particles themselves are always just that: particles. See _The Fabric of Reality_ by David Deutsch.
If you actually stop to think about it, the "wave" nature of particles doesn't make any sense anyway. What are waves made of? Answer: vast numbers of particles interfering with each other...
<<
Thanks a heap for this, Eric. By the way - what thread? I make it a
point to read all posts (if I can). Maybe I just haven't got to it yet
(many pending).
>>
It is one with me, David and Richard, talking about Blackmore's book and (most recently) Level 3. Thread names vary. If you read all posts, you should see it.
Dan: I loved your description of the mind/consciousness as a "strange attractor" in control space. It's wrong (if memetics is right), but it is a good summation of Richards Level 3, or my "conscious approach", or any other related topic.
ERiC
p.s. I see my meme for quoting technique has spread to you!