Article, A Solipsistic View On Memetics - Part 2

From: LJayson@aol.com
Date: Mon Sep 11 2000 - 01:45:42 BST

  • Next message: LJayson@aol.com: "Re: Article, A Solipsistic View on Memetics - Part 1"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA05940 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 11 Sep 2000 01:49:25 +0100
    From: <LJayson@aol.com>
    Message-ID: <99.9f510fc.26ed8536@aol.com>
    Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 20:45:42 EDT
    Subject:  Article, A Solipsistic View On Memetics - Part 2
    To: Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be
    CC: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 117
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Part 2

    The question of course of wether then ' reality ' ' exists ' or not is
    rather
    silly/ fallacious and useless. It is impossible to prove either way because
    the very thing I use to know that is inself the thing whose ability to know
    that produces the impossibility to do that...our brain.
    However in a sense the existence of memes can ' t than be prooven either.

    Len:
    Right. If memes are ideas that inhabit our brain, it would be scientifically
    falacious to use that very same brain to prove the existence of memes.

    Why do good things for other people if you think they don ' t really exist,
    are merely part of your imagination; and why should we hand in wallets
    found on the street if neither the street, the wallet nor the person suppo-
    singly owning the wallet does memetical exist, does not correspond
    with my reality !?

    Len:
    As loving parents we feed our children. Try not giving them meals for
    several hours, from their screams we will soon find out that they do
    indeed exist.

    What is then the purpose of the search into memetics if I can have memes
    which deny the existence of other people and even deny their memes !?

    Len:
    Not all memes are true. Our brains are loaded with false memes that
    Dawkins, Blackmore, Brodie and others call viruses.

    What is the purpose of our/ my cultural environment if firstly culture as we/
    I know it, don ' t really exist and secondly why should we/ I bother at all
    if all
    what exists is merely a mirror image of our/ my mind !?

    Len:
    As humans with brains, to survive in the world, we have to behave as though
    the cultural environment is real. If that mirror image is accurate enough to
    be workable in terms of survival, then the mirror image is valuable. Without
    our mirror image we would die or be placed in a mental institution.

    Anyway, ideas can have the same underlying form as f. e. morphogenetic
    fields. In the same sense that those came (ex- hypothesis) into being,
    ideas can have their base in the unconscious mind, and thus no fixed
    grounding.
    The concept of an idea ( if there is one ) would be simply ' from its own
    case '. Therfor it can be demonstrated that ' reality ' does not possess
    any logical scope in reference to the ' ideas ' we all have.
    That is, uniformation ( all ideas are intented units of the internal structure
    of ( a ) reality is greatly depending on the content/ context and is thus
    partly due ( if we decompose the structure) to cognitive and evolutionary
    processes within the a single individual.

    Len:
    Reality is the idea of being hungry, going to the market to buy food,
    taking it home and eating it. It would seem that, except for viruses,
    ideas and reality operate dovetail together in a highly realistic way.

    Such conclusions are the result of three philosophical pre- suppositions,
    A_ that what I know is certainly the content of my own mind ( memes)
    B_ that there is no conceptual or logically necessary link between the
    mental and the physical ( the idea that there has to be no logical link
    between the memetical activity of my mind and the behavioural disposi-
    tions of my body) and
    C_ that the ( memetical) experiences of a given person are necessarily
    private to that person ( Idit Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
    ( These reflections can be prooven wrong, but those conclusions are of
     no importance to this article.)

    Len:
    I agree with A but disagree with B. There is a definite link between the
    conceptual and physical---provided that my conceptual thinking is
    accurate. Memes are not always accurate; there are many false memes
    that are contradicted by the physical environment.

    In the case of C, I would agree that no memetic idea can be transmitted
    from one human to another with perfect fidelity---there are always
    discrepancies that may or may not be serious enough to invalidate the
    memeplex.

    These pre- suppositions are making it indeed the collectiviness, the
    sameness very hard_ in a sense it don 't really exists, but where in the
    first place is the problem ( if we ever can talk about one ) of
    collectiviness/
    sameness coming from !?

    Len:
    I would agree that there is no 100% collectiveness-sameness.
    The sharing of memes in a culture are always approximations in
    each individual brain. However millions of memeplexes are
    shared by a culture with a sufficient degree sufficient closeness
    to create a cohesive result within the group.

                                               End of part Two

    It's on to Part Three tomorrow.
    Best wishes,
    Len in Reno

    ===============================================================
    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 : Mon Sep 11 2000 - 01:50:28 BST