Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA08470 (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 18:31:23 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01c01c1a$1efb7fa0$1a09bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <99.9f510fc.26ed8536@aol.com> Subject: Re: Article, A Solipsistic View On Memetics - Part 2 Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:59:22 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Article, A Solipsistic View On Memetics - Part 2
> 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.
>
<< The moral consequences of a " solipsistic " view on memetics are yet to
be seen. Like I mentioned in my reply to Vincent, selfish is not enough, not
hard enough...memes are/ do IMHO more than that. They created and do
create the world where you and I live in, but ( and Joe will shoot me for
that)
all could be a meme- trick, a believesystem wherein you " believe " that
first you have children and secondly that they are hungry.
Imagine you being part of a greater solipsistic mind, you will feed your
children
because feeding the children is part of constructing the outside world for
that
mind...
Do I make sense here !?>>
> 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.
<< With the notion of solipsism, no ! Ideas ARE reality ! Remerber there is
no
other mind...each idea is out there reality, they don 't have to work
together
to be realistic. Each idea is simply thrown out as being part of that
reality.
The one can 't get without the other, but they don 't operate together as
you
put it.
By the way, IMHO (and I am working on that) an idea " are those particular
memes appropiate needed to handle a particular situation and a set of new
memes ". Memes and ideas are in my book NOT the same. An idea is com-
posed out of memes, new connections between them make up new ideas (new
memeplexes too). Reality is the result of putting new ideas out there, not
put-
ting new memes out there...in a sense they are, but that is IMHO just one of
the major counterblocks for memetics. We have to find a clear definition for
idea and meme. They are not the same and like I said, I working on that...>>
> 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.
<< See for that the webpages which Joe Dees put on this list. >>
> 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.
<< Agreed, but my major concern is still the problem of the individual
within
the collective. If you read past post which I have written you will
understand
that I am an " individualist ", collectiviness is somewhat a strange
position for me to be in. I do understand I am part of a group and I do
understand that I have
to follow rules in order to survive, but I can 't understand to reason why
in the
other direction. That is, the collective pushes me around in order to being
part
of that collective, that is something I have problems with.
It seems, in the present political arena, that the collective have problems
with
the individuals and with the individuality, where I see that I have problems
with the collective- state of things. From my point of view that is quit a
diffe-
rence...
Many regards,
Kenneth
( I am, because we are)
===============================================================
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 - 18:32:31 BST