Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA09306 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:33:10 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017458CB@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:31:22 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Hi Kris, and welcome to our world!
Thanks for these comments (and everyone else's actually) on these questions.
I can see a common element in people's responses to the first question, that
is that truths are relative to the existing framework of beliefs that a
person has, and IMHO I'd certainly agree with that. The next question would
be, I suppose, where do our initial notions of truth come from? Are their
innate truths that are necessary for a child to have, or do all our 'truths'
come from imitation/learning etc.?
Kris, you're second point here I think is very interesting. It does seem to
me that one thing about something we regard to be the truth is precisely
that we fell it is 'the truth' because it seems evident to us that it
should apply not only to us as individuals but to everybody and everything
else as well. As you say, missionaries may simply be involved in the act of
trying to limit the cognitive dissonance of their belief in the absolute
truth of God not being shared by other people. Exactly the same thing is
going on with all the evolution writers- they keep writing because they have
to keep trying to convert all the creationists and critics of evolution to
the truth. I think here, for example, of the exasperation of the likes of
Richard Dawkins or Carl Sagan over alternative religions and astrology etc.
etc. (Of course I assume those on this list would have more sympathy with
Dawkins and Sagan, than with colonial missionaries).
Looking forward to your further contributions to the list.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Kris Daehler
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 7:13 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades
>
> 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 : Fri Jun 16 2000 - 12:33:53 BST