Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id GAA06365 (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 06:31:54 +0100 From: <LJayson@aol.com> Message-ID: <bb.6e47b29.26edc791@aol.com> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 01:28:49 EDT Subject: Article, A Solipsistic View On memetics - Part 3 To: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk CC: memetics@mmu.ac.uk, Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be 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 3
Descartes held, in the concept ' I think therefor I am ' a solitairy
consciousness
which can be assured of its own existence exclusively as " one " conscious
mind. This view is simple to understand.
In Descartes' view, God bridged the gap between me and the world of other
humanoid objects, giving me the innate knowledge assuming the existence of
an outside world.
That is too is simple to understand, but it cannot be the bias where upon I
can$
place a theory like memetics.
It would be too simple pr supposing that f. e God has giving me the urge to
investigate Richard Dawkins ' famous words.
" I " know for sure I did subscribe myself to this list in order to access
know-
ledge about the subject. And in the view of the matter, I I am the only mind
known
to myself to exist, how is it possible that I can talk to you all !?
How is it possible that you all are part of my joy and my sarrow, of my sense
of personality and identity !?
Len:
Dawkins, as usual, makes a great deal of sense.
Such a simple conclusion is nimical to this solipsistic view. There can be
neither collectiviness or sameness nor a concept individual, because on the
one hand the thoughts, effects of behaviour, emotions, desires, humour,
love and ambition are anyhow known to me as the only consciousness
known to me to exists and on the other hand the basic concept of an
individual implies more than one direct involved subject, what accordingly
the tenet of
solipsism is not recognized at all.
Len:
I agree.
But that in a sense can be a memeplex, a chemical process...in my brain.
If this is so, everything ends here.
Len:
Since memes have replicator power, they don't necessarily end in your
brain, unless you choose that they terminate there.
Thus it follows, in that case, that I too
don ' t exist, but I would be in some sense the only thing ' alive ' in order
to notice that and to think memetically about it.
Such prperty would then give rise to the supposition that we are some part
of some kind of collective mind_in the sense that then each other individual
has an unique and priveleged access to the part of that collective mind which
he/ she calls then his/ hers own mind.
Len:
Since all our memes are imitated or copied, I suppose in that sense
each one of us spends our lives sharing bits and pieces of the collective
mind. We then experience those bits and pieces to be a unique
gestalts, that which we call 'Kenneth' or 'Len.
This view makes it clear that there is no collectiviness, not even Behind the
Difference ( Idit Chris Lofting ) because 1. we all have priveleged psycholo-
gical concepts/ memeplexes which are denied to everyone else and 2. this
kind of thinking don 't allow the unique, but illusive existence of another
in-
dividual anyhow.
Len:
From what source did we derive these memeplexes, if not from the collective?
We are truly, each one of us, i n d i v i d u a l s .
Len:
We are individuals in the sense that each one of us has a unique
assortment of memeplexes that we've extracted from the culture--
collective
The notion that there can be a collective mind can 't be prooven neither as
Behind/ Sameness nor as Behind/ Difference. That is, because in this view
each pattern of thought/ each meme and each memeplex is fundamental
solipsistic in its development_it starts up from its own case and in its
essentials
we can 't know if such a thing like a memeplex have its genesis in the
Sameness or the in Difference.
Len:
I can understand 'sameness' but how would you explain 'difference?'
According to the philosophical content of this article and due to the philo-
sophy of solipsism_each memeplex have invented its own piece of notion
of the world and then stuck it ' out there ' as something real and apart from
itself ( I am for all i know its host to do so) all the while denying that it
have
done so ( Idit Looking Award)
Len:
I don't believe that memeplexes invent anything. Can you explain how
they do it? There is a certain degree of meme-mutation that causes
memeplexes to gradually change, but I would hardly call it 'inventing.'
Nothing is simply ' there ' , it has to be constructed inside the brain. Our
brain takes photographs of each aspect/ of each argument/ of each image/
takes notion of each meme/ every sent/ every signal and processes it into
one ' moving ' vision of the outside world. What the brain does is building
up
each layer of the us surrounding outside world ans shape those as an ' as-
pect ' of what is really out there.
Len:
"Constructed" may not be the best word. Why not copied or imitated?
What evidence can you offer for this 'moving vision?'
The last sentence is not clear. Not sure what you mean.
We can 't comprehend all what is happening around us, our eyes take up
fractions of that info, send it to the brain where the brain processes the
info
along existing pathways of recognition into images which are then projected
back in the outside world.
Len:
How about this revision:
......which may then projected back in the outside world immediately, at a
future time, or perhaps never.
In that way, we don 't have to see ( our brain saves energy) it all, our brain
' guesses ' what is out there along subways of recognition; what it remerbers
of previous times and of past experiences.
Len:
I would agree that we often fill-in the missing pieces.
What is ' really ' out there is highly a projection of our personal
innerworld.
(Some part, idit Brain Story, by Susan Greenfield)
Len:
That is often true.
Thus " I " am in that respect therby only something conscient where through
solipsistic patterns propagate themselves_and that is analogous to what we
know of the nature of memes.
Len:
Not clear; this may need some further explanation.
End of part Three
Hi Kenneth:
Sometimes I wonder whether it's my lack of background in
philosophy that is causing me to not always follow your
line of reasoning.
In any event, I admire your thinking ability and overall I'm enjoying
your essay.
Part 4 tomorrow.
Best wishes,
Len
--------------------
===============================================================
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 - 06:33:02 BST