Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA16421 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 9 May 2000 19:30:12 +0100 Message-ID: <20000509182520.11222.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [206.141.209.167] From: "Mark J." <libertarian99@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Blackmore/The "Self" Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 14:25:20 EDT Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
This is a point I have considered for some time. To my way of thinking it
seems that memes as an end all explanation for the thing we refer to as "The
Self" is not totally satisfactory. I discussed this aspect of Sue's theory
with her at the recent conference in Tucson (Toward a Science of
Consciousness 2000)last month. To me it seems that there is something to
our conscious awareness that is beyond such a simple explanation. Sue's
arguement is that "consciousness" is not necc. equalivant to the "Self" and
that the "Self" is a creative and highly advantagous memetic inovation. She
seems to be saying that there is something to consciousness that is real but
it does not take the form of an "I" or substantial self. While this may be
true, I am not completly sold on the idea of "Self" consciousness as a
memetic dilusion. That would predict substantial variation in the
population. While we do see some significant variation it seems to only
correlate to situations that can be understood in classical psychological
terms (brain injury, transmitter imbalances, drugs, etc.). I will not try
to defend any particular model of the self, but rather say that from what
the situation seems to me the meme dillusion or meme "nest" idea seems to
take the power of memetic explanation a little too far. What is the Self?
Got me, but if it is a memetic based confabulation there should be some
major variation in what the qualia people experience would be. Is that the
case? It dosnt quite seem so. Still might it be the case that the "I" meme
is so effective that simply everyone in society catches it or is socialized
into it? That is an interesting idea to say the least, but unless we can
find significant cases where it is not present and other factors have been
controlled for I would be leary of supporting such an idea at this juncture.
Mark
Philosophy/Psychology/Political Science
U of M-Flint
>From: "Oliver Kullman" <okullman@ut.ee>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
>Subject: Blackmore
>Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 13:30:49 +0300
>
To me it seems that "the
>self" doesn't fit Blackmore's own definition of a meme, as it does not
>spread
>by imitation. Or is there evidence that babies catch up the "self" by
>imitating their parents? I'm not sure how psychologists have answered to
>this question, but if the "self" really is a meme or memeplex then
>shouldn't
>we have some observable mutations or variations of the meme in different
>cultures or even families.
>
>Oliver Kullman
>okullman@ut.ee
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
===============================================================
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)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 09 2000 - 19:30:33 BST