RE: Fwd: Did language drive society or vice versa?

From: Richard Brodie (richard@brodietech.com)
Date: Thu May 11 2000 - 16:26:51 BST

  • Next message: Bruce Jones: "RE: a memetic experiment- an eIe opener"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA26813 (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 16:29:00 +0100
    From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Cc: "Kevin O'Connor \(KMO\)" <kmo@c-realm.com>
    Subject: RE: Fwd: Did language drive society or vice versa?
    Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 08:26:51 -0700
    Message-ID: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJGEMKEMAA.richard@brodietech.com>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
    In-Reply-To: <391A7EFE.D8AB8E87@mediaone.net>
    Importance: Normal
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Chuck wrote:

    <<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.>>

    Religion is not about what is true. Religion is about what beliefs are
    likely to yield a desirable life.

    Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com www.memecentral.com/rbrodie.htm

    -----Original Message-----
    From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
    Of Chuck Palson
    Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 2:36 AM
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: Fwd: Did language drive society or vice versa?

    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 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 - 16:29:28 BST