Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA19379 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 22 Feb 2002 03:57:35 GMT Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20020221215917.00a58270@mail.clarityconnect.com> X-Sender: rrecchia@mail.clarityconnect.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:50:23 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Ray Recchia <rrecchia@mail.clarityconnect.com> Subject: Re: ality (cont'd) In-Reply-To: <001d01c1bb39$36a81680$0ec2b3d1@teddace> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
At 04:38 PM 2/21/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> > > > I'm going to be blunt. I wish you would quit wasting our time here.
> > >
> > >I understand that it's frustrating to be confronted with a refutation of
> > >your cherished beliefs for which you have no answer. But getting me to
> > >shut up won't change anything.
> >
> > Yes it will. It will mean that people with same basic assumptions can have
> > a discussion about their common interests.
>
>When everyone has the same basic assumptions, all you get is catechism.
Like the old catechism of 1+1 = 2.
> > It is like trying to have a discussion on punctuated equilibrium when
> > someone keeps interrupting you to let everyone know that actually God
> > created the Earth.
>
>Already dealt with this false analogy. While God is neither verifiable nor
>falsifiable, natural memory is a scientific hypothesis, with plenty of
>evidence in favor. I've already presented some of the evidence on this
>list. I suggest you take a look at Rupert Sheldrake's *The Presence of the
>Past.*
> > > > Your real interest in not in memes but in 'morphic fields'.
> > >
> > >Ad hominem. Not that it makes the slightest difference, but my real
> > >interest is in the question of freedom. That's what got me started down
> > >this road.
> >
> > Yes and that where why you keep on insisting on this mind through time
> > thing. Because you are emotionally unable to accept that you are caused
> > by the physical world. Your thinking is ultimately not fact driven but
> > emotion driven.
>
>When people make comments like this, it's because they're
>frustrated. They don't know how to deal with an argument they haven't
>even begun to
>comprehend, so they hurl insults.
>
I think I comprehend very well. Here is a snip from 'Tue, 11 Dec 2001
11:08:57 -0800 Re: Definition please' that I think pins down the emotional
difficulty you are having.
>Once you cross the line between the self-contained mental universe of
>humanity and the blind workings of the organic realm, there's nothing to
>stop you from descending all the way back to the most elementary bacteria.
You have a problem similar to that of creationists. While the
creationist's ego is threatened by a physical evolutionary continuum yours
is threatened by the notion that your thinking processes share a common
basis with other simpler organisms that also possess nervous systems.
> > > > Your definition of memes requires acceptance of those ideas
> > >
> > >How can that be when I haven't mentioned morphic theory in months?
> >
> > All then lets look at your definition. According to you ideas and
> > behaviors start out being reproduced 'intentionally'. In the case of the
> > Southern accent example the intention may be subconscious.
>
>This is incoherent. What I said was that memes can get started either
>through intention, which is strictly conscious, or creativity, which is mostly
>unconscious.
You are right. It is incoherent.
> > Then after a
> > while according to you, the ideas or behaviors take on a life of their own
> > and are reproduced without further subconscious human intention. At that
> > point they become memes. When does this magical point occur when
> > subconscious intentional reproduced behaviors turn into memes? Just
> > after a while. It's really hard to say isn't it?
>
>The distinction I'm making is exactly the same as the standard
>psychological distinction between intention and habit. I'm simply
>applying it to culture instead of the individual mind. The boundary is
>fluid because that's the way it is with subjective existence.
>
> > In fact it is a meaningless
> > distinction that no one would have any reason to accept unless....hmm..
> > maybe after being reproduced enough times they create a morphic
> > impression or something of that sort?
>
>You don't need morphic theory to distinguish intention from habit, whether
>it's personal habit or memetic. This is yet another fallacy, known as
>"poisoning the well."
>
> > Isn' t that what that otherwise
> > useless definition is about? Because according to you a behavior can
> > be reproduced even subconsciously in its beginning stages without
> > alteration and still not be a meme because it hasn't happened enough
> > times.
>
>It's a meme when it becomes habituated among a a group of people.
It is an invalid analogy. The same meme is acquired by a mind once. Not
multiple times. There is no habitual acquisition of memes.
> > > > No one here accepts your ideas
> > > > and after a while people just give up trying to argue with you.
> > >
> > >Appealing to the crowd. Well, at least you've switched over to another
> > >fallacy. How refreshing.
> >
> > In fact Ted convince a different crowd and I would be happy to listen to
> > you. Go to the cognitive scientists and push your hypothesis on them. I
> > am not a cognitive scientist. I have some interest in it but for the
> > purposes of developing memetics I think it makes more sense to start
> > with the same assumptions accepted by recognized authorities in the
> > field. If you can get some noted experts in the field to start quoting
> > Sheldrake and yourself then I would be more than willing to take a second
> > look.
>
>An elaborate rationalization for telling me to shut up and go
>away. Relax, Ray. These discussions run their course in due time. I'll
>be moving on soon enough.
>
>Ted
There must be some list server on cognitive science out there that you can
join. Good luck.
Ray Recchia
===============================================================
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 : Fri Feb 22 2002 - 04:07:55 GMT