From: Dace (edace@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat 09 Nov 2002 - 00:04:38 GMT
> From: Wade Smith <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
>
> On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 02:38 , Dace wrote:
>
> > our desire to understand life with the same exactitude with which we
> > understand our own technology.
>
> The nice thing about any working technology is our ability to use it
> without understanding it in the least.
We understand computers a lot better than we understand ourselves.
> From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
>
> >From: "Dace" <edace@earthlink.net>
> >
> > > From: "Othman Mohamed/CUSM/Reg06/SSSS"
> > > <othman.mohamed@muhc.mcgill.ca>
> > >
> > > I also find it bizar that he was
> > > not sure whetehr Dawkins consider memes as replicators. If I remember
his
> > > words correctly, he said" Does Dawkins himself consider memes as
> > > replicator? Although it is not clear from his writing, it seems that
he does".
> > > C'mon, Dawkins was very cleare in difining memes as replicators from
> > > the very first time he mentioned the idea of memes in the 1967 edition
of
> > > the selfish gene. In fact that is how he came about the meme idea
because
> > > he was looking for other replicators apart from genes.
> > >
> > > Othman
> >
> >The question is whether memes actively replicate or are passively
> >replicated. Clearly Dawkins intended the former, and this is what
defines
> >memetics against standard theories of transmission of cultural patterns
over
> >time. How did we get to the point where so many memetics enthusiasts
deny
> >the defining feature of memes? To frame the question in terms of
memetics,
> >what is the basis of the meme responsible for the belief that memes don't
> >propagate themselves?
> >
> >The answer can be found in our obsession with mechanistic metaphors of
> >life. We like to think of the brain as a kind of organic computer. But
the
> >information in a computer doesn't self-replicate. Even if it does get
> >copied, the information remains entirely passive during the process. In
> >the mechanistic view, nothing is really "alive" or self-propelling, just
> >passively reacting to physical and chemical forces. Given the hold that
> >mechanism has over our thinking, we just don't feel comfortable with the
> >idea of something that lives and promotes itself. The drift away from
> >memes as replicators results from the mechanism meme, which exploits our
> >desire to understand life with the same exactitude with which we
understand our
> >own technology.
>
> Is it possible for you to go a post or two *without* railing against the
> mechanistic worldview and all the evils it has wrought?
Do you disagree with my assessment, and if so, why?
> From: "Grant Callaghan" <grantc4@hotmail.com>
>
> The mind is a process of the brain but
> not every animal with a brain has a mind. It seems unique to human
beings.
That's the Thomistic/Cartesian view. Descartes considered himself a good
Catholic who was only applying his mechanistic analysis to Christian
teaching.
> without a brain, there is no mind. Without a mind there are no concepts.
> Without concepts there are no memes to transfer. But where can you put
your
> finger on any of these things outside of the brain to prove that they
exist?
How can you prove that concepts exist inside of the brain? All I see is
neurons and synapses. Concepts are abstract. Neurons and synapses are
concrete. It would seem that concepts cannot logically exist in brains.
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 2.1.5 : Sat 09 Nov 2002 - 00:06:50 GMT