Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA05523 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:17:17 +0100 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:13:39 -0700 Subject: RE: Cons and Facades From: Kris Daehler <daehler@mindless.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Message-ID: <B56E6AE3.7DA%daehler@mindless.com> Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="MS_Mac_OE_3043912419_4310043_MIME_Part" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
hello my name is kris daehler. i am new to this list (just discovered it
yesterday) and to memetics (i just finished susan blackmore's book) but i
hope you will forgive my butting in--the subject seemed too interesting to
avoid. thank you all for a very interesting discussion list.
btw, this response is directed specifically at Vincent Campbell's two
questions about truth, i'm not sure how this will fit in with the discussion
on cons and facades...
Vincent Campbell wrote:
>I suppose partly, what I'm thinking of here is something which I think is
>central to the memetic process, and that is the general desire we all have
>to pass on 'the truth' whenever we think we know what that is. Of course,
>sometimes we don't want to tell people, but to those people we like, or are
>family we usually have a very strong urge to tell people 'the truth' (I
>guess this might be an inclusive fitness thing).
<SNIP>
>I suppose there are two elements to this. First, what is it about certain
>information that it can induce our notion of it being the truth?
it's possible that the notion of certain information's truth value may arise
not from quality of the information itself, but rather to its relationship
to an already acquired memeplex--let's call it a truthplex. this truthplex
is a meta-notion about the world that includes general information about
truth, and most importantly, establishes criteria for determining what is
and isn't truth. so scientists may have acquired a truthplex that includes
verifiability as a criterion, and fundamentalist christians may require
compatibility with the bible as a criterion. whatever the criteria, if a
piece of information satisfies the necessary criteria, it is stamped as
true. in this way, an idea is only true when it has been stamped by the
truthplex, and its truth has nothing to do with the information itself.
>Second,
>what is it about 'the truth' that we generally feel a strong desire to pass
>it on to other people?
most truthplexes seem to include a notion that information stamped as "true"
are true for everyone everywhere. some truthplexes, like the notion of
platonic ideals or other religious truthplexes, extend those notions through
time (i.e. it has always been so and always will be). the classic opposite
of epistemology seems (to me) to be relativism. as soon as a notion's truth
value can be seen as contingent on perspective, it loses some degree of
importance. a successful truthplex guards against this by including this
notion of universality. this is where the desire to spread the truth comes
in. if i have an idea "p" that has been stamped as true by my truthplex,
and i see that you don't believe that p, a certain amount of cognitive
dissonance has been created. i can resolve this dissonance by either
removing the truth-stamp from p (which would be difficult because i would
then have to change the truth criteria built into my truthplex) or by
manipulating you to get you to stamp p with your own truth-stamp. if i get
others to recognize p as true, i will have resolved the dissonance. so
religious missionaries are primarily on a mission to resolve the problems
*they* have with their own faith (this by converting others to prove the
universality of their truths).
it's also important to note that people may have varying levels of truth
stamps. we may have different forms of truth e.g. supremely true (god
exists/does not exist), pragmatically true (i do/don't control my actions),
scientifically true (my actions are/are not caused by biochemical
processes), etc. this explains how people can often have multiple notions
of truth, even conflicting understandings of the same subject... a complex
truthplex may accomodate many different forms of truth.
again, thank you all for an exceptional and fruitful discussion...
kris
===============================================================
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 Jun 15 2000 - 19:17:58 BST