Re: electric meme bombs

From: Scott Chase (ecphoric@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat 02 Nov 2002 - 00:24:19 GMT

  • Next message: joedees@bellsouth.net: "Re: electric meme bombs"

    >From: joedees@bellsouth.net
    >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk, fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    >Subject: Re: electric meme bombs
    >Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:37:02 -0600
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > >From: joedees@bellsouth.net
    > > >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > > >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk, fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    > > >Subject: Re: electric meme bombs
    > > >Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 15:09:43 -0600
    > > >
    > > > > Joe,
    > > > > > Different people can indeed have similar thoughts, but this does
    > > > > > not mean that several similar actions taken by the same person
    > > > > > do not share a common mental basis. Individual neurons fire, or
    > > > > > do not fire, depending upon their input from other neuurons, and
    > > > > > dynamic gestalt- patterns are indeed formed, which refer to and
    > > > > > represent certain specific informational types and not others;
    > > > > > some of these information types may be accessed to guide
    > > > > > specific action tokens. Which patterns have been internalized
    > > > > > depends upon an individual's genetic predispositions, personal
    > > > > > choices and environmental history.
    > > > >
    > > > > I don 't deny that either, but that ain 't the thing I was after !
    > > > > I am fighting the assumption that the bias HAS to be a common one.
    > > > > IMO, maybe it is too hard to comprehend, what commonly is seen as
    > > > > collective is the way by which the evolution of a singularity went
    > > > > up. Everything in nature tends to be (the) getting better/ best.
    > > > > Our course to take this, that this is done along lines of
    > > > > consensus, deliberation and consultation for granted has led us
    > > > > away of what really matters in nature_ the singularity of whatever
    > > > > kind from whereout the evolution of the object/ subject can begin.
    > > > >
    > > > > The idea is to get from the Big bang as singularity to the
    > > > > Universe, from one cell to multiple celluar organisms, from one
    > > > > single idea to the complex state of a memeplex, from one seed of
    > > > > one tree to the whole of the forest which eventually will grow,
    > > > > from the one single hut to the houses in the town.... from
    > > > > singular to plural that is the way evolution follows.
    > > > >
    > > >No, evolution tends to favor progressively more complex and
    > > >elaborated systems, which permit a wider range of possible
    > > >alternatives to the organism, and thus increase the likelihood that
    > > >it will survive to reproduce. Not from singular to multiplicity, but
    > > >from less complex to more complex system.
    > > >
    > > Yet bacteria rule the planet.
    > >
    > > If you draw an imaginary line from monad to man and generalize from
    > > this unidimensional and linearized view of evolution up a ladder
    > > across the whole, you might tend to (mis)perceive a progressive
    > > tendency toward complexity in evolution, especially if you fail to
    > > define "complex" and "elaborate".
    > >
    > > Some of us avoid such cheezy generalizations.
    > >
    >There are more bacteria, but they are much smaller and more limited to
    >particular niches (for each bacterial variant); we can perceive, conceive
    >and act in so many more ways.
    >
    If we are so great and 'evolution tends to favor' us, which your argument boils down to, then why do bacteria persist? Why haven't we replaced them or sent them into the pit of extinction as a group?

    They ain't got no brains and they don't need 'em to stick around on this planet, regardless of our existence. Psychologists may look at them as beneath consideration, because they ain't got no brains. Are you a psych major by any chance?
    >
    >If evolution permits greater freedom of
    >choice, then we are far more evolved than bacteria.
    >
    "(F)ar more evolved than bacteria"? That makes no sense. Come to think of it this whole statement (from IF to THEN) makes no sense.
    >
    >I'll believe
    >otherwise when bacteria build rockets and check out the moon.
    >
    In all our superior wisdom we have developed antibiotics for medical usage. The stupid bacteria keep pulling the self-serving pedestal from beneath us as strains emerge with are resistant to these wondrous tools of human intellectaul superiority. As doctors, the really smart cookies of our species, overprescribe antibiotics for lame reasons (like the common *viral* cold), more resistant strains will emerge and the nasty bacteria may actually win out.
    >
    >Of
    >course there is no cosmic value associated with our greater possibilities
    >as a result of our greater complexity, but this does not mean that our
    >greater abilities are not there, nor that they are not a result of our
    >greater complexity.
    >
    Bacteria are able to become resistant to antibiotics. They don't need our
    "greater complexity" to perform this feat. If they become resistant to all available antibiotics, who then has the "greater ability"?

    You have an odd view of evolution.

    _________________________________________________________________ Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband.  Join now! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp

    =============================================================== 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 2.1.5 : Sat 02 Nov 2002 - 00:28:18 GMT