First Causes

ZZBunker zzbunker at
Wed Sep 15 08:09:41 EST 2004

lesterDELzick at (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<41470a1e.36876126 at>...
> On 14 Sep 2004 03:19:01 -0700, dralexgreen at (Alex Green) in
> wrote:
> >lesterDELzick at (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<4144695e.8291314 at>...
> >> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:47:32 GMT, Paul Victor Birke
> >> <nonlinear at> in wrote:
> >> 
> >> >OK Lester, slowly absorbing your comments!
> >> >
> >> >thanks
> >> >
> >> >Paul
> >> >
> >> >PS  If I could just say you are arguing that a change is by definition a 
> >> >difference and the first change as it were must therefore be a delta or 
> >> >difference in its essential form.  If this too crude a summary?
> >> >
> >> >Paul
> >> 
> >> Hi Paul -
> >> 
> >> It's hard to agree or disagree. Differences certainly result in change
> >> and all change originates in differences. But if we rely on change in
> >> conventional terms to define differences, we may well exclude other
> >> aspects of differences which do not necessarily result in change. I'm
> >> thinking here of apparently static differences which define space, for
> >> example.
> >> 
> >
> >Asserting that space can only be defined by differences is equivalent
> >to stating that all information must be encoded. ie: a location of one
> >point is taken then a location of another point is taken and an output
> >1 is made if they are different. This is actually equivalent to
> >building in an assumption that information systems theory (and pre
> >twentieth century physics) applies to all phenomena.
> I have no idea what you mean by encoded or the other terms you use
> here. What you have in terms of universally demonstrable first causes
> are differences, and differences between differences, and the results
> of those differences are whatever they are. If certain results coexist
> with respect to one another and yet differ from each other, they are
> said to exist in space. There is no other way to know space or time or
> anything else, for that matter, except in terms of differences and
> differences between differences and that principle compounded in terms
> of itself because there is no other first cause other than differences
> applicable to anything. (The phrase differences between differences is
> not the same as the self contradictory alternative different from
> differences.)

  Obviously there is, since the differences you are 
  speaking of are hormones, not differences.
  Since that's the only reason that the phrase "compounding"
  even makes sense to begin with.

  But, bewteen some different things, there is intelligence.
  Which is where the term encoding comes from.

> >See:
> >
> >It is evident from the homunculus argument that somewhere in the brain
> >the state or form of brain activity takes over from simple encoding.
> As noted in my collateral reply nothing in what I suggest has anything
> to do with computationalism as far as the mechanical implementation of
> sentience or machine or artificial intelligence is concerned except
> with respect to modeling.
> Regards - Lester

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list