Re: Article, A Solipsistic View on Memetics - Part 1

From: LJayson@aol.com
Date: Mon Sep 11 2000 - 01:48:57 BST

  • Next message: LJayson@aol.com: "Article, A Solipsistic View On memetics - Part 3"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA05969 (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 01:51:58 +0100
    From: <LJayson@aol.com>
    Message-ID: <37.a059479.26ed85f9@aol.com>
    Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 20:48:57 EDT
    Subject: Re: Article, A Solipsistic View on Memetics - Part 1
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Content-Language: en
    X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 117
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Hi Kenneth,
        I am new to the listgroup. I've been studying memetics for
    only a few months. The extent of my reading is Blackmore,
    Dawkins, Dennett, Brodie and some of the archives.

    I hope that my suggestions are helpful

    Best wishes,
    Len Jayson in Reno, Nevada, USA

      I' d be grateful for any feedback on the followig article, which I hope will
      eventually evolve into a paper for JoM.
      I will post it in several parts due to its lenght.
      For feedback, if you all want, wait untill I posted all the parts !?

        Part 1

      We all do understand memes to represent units of information passed on in
      some form of communication between two or more organisms/ brains.
      We comprehend memes as intentions, fears, emotions, beliefs, suppositions,
      aspirations,...as they are found in language, ideologies, theories and
    religions.
      We do also understand that a Self, that I reflects those memes.
      
    Len:
    Perhaps the last sentence could be expressed more clearly.
      

      It is I who likes the icecream, it is I who wants to be a billionaire, it
    is I who is
      aware (of some parts) of my memes and it is I who is trying to write this.
      This I is the heart of the Self(plex), I work to defend it, to promote it,
    even I
      think hard about it to understand it better. Is that is the case then ' my
    '
      memes will strive and succeed where others fail, and that Self(plex) of
    mine
      will grow. ( Idit Susan Blackmore/ Memes, Myself and I)

       Len:
      It may be better to say "my memes may strive and succeed", etc
      There is really no way of being certain.

      Once the 'Self ' has begun to grow, it can begin in trying to propagate
    itself.
      It does that throughout the memetic concept that every time it comes across
      an ' idea ' ( more considered as definition, belief, action, detail,
    connotion, as
      aniother context/ content, interpretation_idit Robert Clewley) it will meet
    it
      with the notion ' I like that ' or ' I don 't want that '.
      This ' selfish behaviour ' of the memeplex ' Self ' makes one thing
    cristal
      clear_the little ' me ' inside me is an illusion, it is a memeplex of
    sensa-
      tions, activity and consciousness of which I think it lives my life and
    makes
      up my decisions.

       Len comments:
       crystal not cristal
          
      So rather than being a permanent, persisting entity, the Self may be more
      like a story about a Self that does not really exist. But is that true !?
      Can we believe those ideas !?
      We all have the notion of an ' Inner self ', it is Me who walks around in
    the
      park, it is me who hears the birds sing, it is me feeling the breeze...it
    is me
      who touches the trees, it is me who takes everything at a glance...or is it
      only a projection of the mind_a projection of something from ' in here '
    to
      ' out there ' !?
      In other words, can it be that memetics in general and our truly knowable
      selfish memes are nothing more than a creation by theirselves !?

    Len:
    It is best to use the exclamation point more sparingly, perhaps where you
    express a startling or exciting idea.

    You meant to say 'themselves' not 'theirselves'--no such word.

    If memes, as we established are selfish (they show no mercy) and they
      created the world in the way as we know it today ( including the first memes
      for the very first genes) haven ' t they then not created the world in a
    solip-
      sistic way !?
      After all, are they then not egoistic, in some sense moral self- interested
      primary in their doing and being !?
      Memes act in such a way, so what is the point !?

    You may want to leave out ‘as we established’ or change it
    to ‘as we hypothesized.’
    May be better to say they are unrelenting instead of they show no mercy

    Do memes really replace any genes? Don't memes and genes coexist?

    By the way, what does solipsistic mean? I could not find it in the
    M-W dictionary.

      The point is if we think about memes in memetic theories we attribute them
      a collectiviness, a subjective over all else, a sameness. We tend to
    homogenise
      the nature of memes without the analysis in depth of what is regarded as the
      true primacy of individual (private) ideas.
      What we ' know ' ( as a human individual), as the ' me ' who experiences
    this
      life) are all the perceived objects and events which are merely the
    products
       of ' our ' personal consciousness and in fact we can suppose that this
    con-
      sciousness alone is genuinely real and that nothing beyond this conscious-
      ness exists.
      For all I know:- I know ( I belief) I do exist, and only this ' Self '
    exist and only
      this ' Self ' can be known to exist only as a result of my experiences and
      beliefs, only by itself...by Me !!

    Excellent argument!

      

    In principle, existence then means for me ' my ' existence and that of
      ' my ' mental states due to the fact that ' my ' mems interact and make
      up a solipsistic world out there where they can propagate themselves.
      A strong argument for such a suggestion is provided in the hypothesis
      that the brain genrates reality from information which comes in thru ' the
      eyes and in order to make up an accurate map of what ' my ' reality is,
      the brain fills up the gaps with imagination.
      The reality out there is (partly) an optional extra. What counts is what
      is happening inside the brain and what happens there in complety personal.
      In a sense the brain secretes its own private ' reality ' wherein ' me
    ', who
      experiences this ' reality ' is somewhat a convergepoint/ a host whereby
      info/ memes are/ is perceived, gets transformed and is/ are send ' back
      out ' again.

    I would not downplay the reality out there as no more than an optional extra...
    It is certainly as essential to the human mind as any genetic underpinnings.

    In terms of memetic science, how would you define 'imagination?'
    Instead of 'imagination' could you say, 'extraneous memes'?
                                             End of part One

    Kenneth, I like your article a great deal because it says so much
    about the unique qualities of each human brain which then combine
    with memetic intake in countless ways.

    Hope my comments have helped.
    I will give you my views on Part Two later today.

    ===============================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 - 01:53:01 BST