Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA26527 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 11 May 2000 15:33:10 +0100 Message-ID: <391A7EFE.D8AB8E87@mediaone.net> Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 10:35:58 +0100 From: Chuck Palson <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Fwd: Did language drive society or vice versa? References: <20000511113233.AAA12683@camailp.harvard.edu@[204.96.32.168]> <00051114201204.00619@faichney> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Robin Faichney wrote:
>
>
> I think Sherlock is better described as a great meme, than a great memeticist.
> But in any case, the improbability alluded to there is surely subjective.
>
I can see where this kind of reasoning is going, and it could get to the atomic
level and merge memetics with physics. Think of it: Is Sherlock a memeticist or a
meme himself? Well, it's hard to say, but the prevailing theory is that all
memeticists are really just a general form of meme creating other memes. Are there
memes within memes within memes.. etc etc. etc.? The inevitable answer will be
always, Yes, Yes, Yes! And THEN, at a deep atomic level, memetics will indeed be a
science of sciences that provides the unified field theory for all existence. We
will at that point figure out the most urgent of all questions facing memetics: how
many memes fit on the head of a pin!
>
> I guess I have to come clean here and admit I've always had a problem
> understanding the concept of objective (im)probability. To my mind, if we
> really knew all the factors involved, then whatever happened was the only thing
> that possibly could have happened. I realise this is somewhat Newtonian, but
> then that is still the default in the macro realm, is it not? And on this
> basis, im/probability is all about ignorance -- an event seems more or less
> likely GIVEN what we know, and what we don't know, about it and its precursors.
> So to say that anything that actually happened was improbable is, strictly
> speaking, meaningless. Or rather it tells us about our own ignorance, and
> nothing else. Which is why I think people who say such things must have some
> underlying agenda, and as to what that is: why say something is highly
> improbable, unless you're trying to imply there's something "special" about it?
> (And the Newtonian nature of this doesn't get you off the hook unless there is
> something explicitly non-Newtonian in your thinking.)
Actually, from a statistical point of view, you can't say that one event has X
probability of happening because you couldn't no the characteristics of the
relevant universe.
Nevertheless, religion enters where we cannot go. They can say that god created the
normal curve and controls what will go where on it, and, of course, we can't
disprove that - or prove it. Three cheers for religion.
>
>
> --
> Robin Faichney
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 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 : Thu May 11 2000 - 15:33:36 BST