Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA01046 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:04:11 GMT Message-ID: <005201c1b7fb$19b8cba0$9086b2d1@teddace> From: "Dace" <edace@earthlink.net> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <20020210143712.44645.qmail@web12303.mail.yahoo.com> <003701c1b2b0$fa01e160$8086b2d1@teddace> <006001c1b445$33346760$5e2ffea9@oemcomputer> <5.1.0.14.0.20020213221111.02c941c0@pop.cogeco.ca> <5.1.0.14.0.20020215222919.02c94270@pop.cogeco.ca> Subject: Re: Words and Memes Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 13:36:02 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: Keith Henson
> At 10:32 AM 15/02/02 -0800, Dace wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > > You would be much like a computer with the rudiments of an
> > > operating system but nothing more. I don't think it would be much of
> > > an existence.
> >
> >Computers aren't subjects of awareness.
>
> Mine is. My computer is intently aware in a way that human, or even cat
> watching a mouse hole could not do. I it is aware of every key stroke,
> every mouse movement and every mouse click. Besides that, it is
> watching for communication from the cable modem.
This statement is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. We might attribute
awareness to anything, to a dust molecule. Who's to say the dust isn't
aware of the moment it sticks to a solid surface? We might say that God is
aware of every "key stroke" in your brain, and you'll be paying, later on,
for the ones He doesn't approve of.
> > > I don't understand this conflict business.
> >
> >The conflict arises because, inevitably, some of our memified notions
> >will be pathological. Ideas can't distinguish between right and wrong.
> >Any idea, no matter how ridiculous, can become self-replicating.
> >Though quite powerful, "L. Ron is God" doesn't contribute to the good
> >of the social body. It's a freelance meme, much like a carcinogenic
> >cell. When an alternative social body begins to form around a
> >carcinogenic meme, the result is cult, not culture.
>
> I think you could state this in terms more adapted to discussion of
> evolution. Genes and memes construct and program human minds.
> Most of the time genes and memes are not at cross purposes, but
> sometimes (as the Shaker meme I have mentioned) they are. Besides
> the "viewpoints" of genes and memes, genes and memes construct
> individuals who have their own viewpoint no matter how much that
> viewpoint may be biased by genes or memes. Sometimes the effects
> of memes is strong enough to override genes and you get cults like the
> Shakers or Scientology.
My formulation is every bit as evolutionary as yours. It just doesn't abide
by the peculiar (though widespread) reductionistic outlook you subscribe to.
Ted
===============================================================
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 : Sun Feb 17 2002 - 23:55:10 GMT