Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA08722 (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 20:52:59 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c01c2d$e7a30320$9c00bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <bb.6e47b29.26edc791@aol.com> Subject: Re: Article, A Solipsistic View On memetics - Part 3 Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:20:58 +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 3
> 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?
<< In a sense you did derive these memeplexes from a collective, somewhere
down the line you had to. But, if we take the notion that memes are selfish
serious than the picture is somewhat different. Then you will have two kinds
of
memes, collective ones and individual ones. IMHO I think the individual ones
will strive better because they are directly connected to you, their host.
And due to the fact that memes are selfish, self- interested for their
propa-
gation, they will choose the individual way. The collective way is just a
by-
pass, a by- way in order to get propagated further. Memes will use this
road if everything else fails.
Like I said before, memes are IMHO the true individuality building blocks.
And maybe we had derived these memeplexes from the collective, but
examples like autism shows that is not true. In the world of the autist-
person
there is no collective where he/ she could derive memeplexes from.
Individuality- memes are their working on their best...>>
> 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
<< Same argument here, Len. You have to careful with that culture- collec-
tive stuff. I mentioned it in early posts, self- building via memes is
possible,
if we take the possibility that memes are selfish, self- interested serious.
If we are doing that, than the notion of a culture- collective is dropping o
ut.
I am maybe rightly just an individualist because there were far too few
words
said to point my place as a subject. I had to learn the lessons of life by
my-
self, sometimes the hard way. There was no collective helping me, oh yeah
there was... helping me under...that is. See posts of me ( Central questions
of
memetics, Lawrence 1/2/3).>>
> Len:
> I can understand 'sameness' but how would you explain 'difference?'
<< In the sense of the Sameness/ Difference dichotomy. See Chris Lofting
about that (here on the list). In reading Chris I suggest you have better an
open mind. Not all of us are followers of Chris. I use Chris his writing as
guiding lines, as another way seeing things.>>
> 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.'
<< Agreed ! Wrong at my end of the water here. It would be better to
explain that " I " am too a memeplex. I am the only reality, so I must have
invented, better still my memes, this notion of the world and then stuck it
out
there. The question of course arises how do memes invent anything.
Like I said they could come in existence like morphogenetic fields do,
ex- hypothesi, from their own case, but that would be not a sufficiant
answer
to your question I suppose. Really, I don 't know. Any suggestions !? >>
> 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?
<< No, I think constructed is the best word. Think of this like this.
Close your eyes and try to describe in full detail your surroundings, and I
do mean, all of the details. You can 't, there will be always white spots
left.
In order to fill up those spots, your brain have to construct the content of
those spots out of memories. Copied or imitated sounds like 100% precion,
it is never like that.>>
> What evidence can you offer for this 'moving vision?'
<< Yes indeed, not very clear ! Wouldn 't it be better to put evolving
vision ?
Help me out here !
> The last sentence is not clear. Not sure what you mean.
<<Ok, I will try to eloborate, but not today. I will get back to you for
that.>>
> 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.
<< That is another way seeing things. But IMHO all of the pictures, and
also those we don 't see (that is unconscient ones) are thrown back, maby
immediately, at a future time but never never. Maby hard to understand, even
for me though, but there you are...>>
> 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.
<< get back to you for that too.>>
>
>
> 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.
<< Like I said, many things are lost in translating things from Dutch into
English.
That is why I need folks like you, Len. And it is not your lack of
background
in philosophy that is causing the problem, if there is one, but I tried to
sum-
marize my thoughts this time. My wife always says that I make things to
long,
to complicated...>>
> In any event, I admire your thinking ability and overall I'm enjoying
> your essay.
<< My thinking ability often lets me down, you know.
And by the way, all ideas mentioned in this article are not mine, I just put
one and one together. But the general content of the article is somewhat an
old idea I had. I was/ am still, always intruiged in the idea of one single
mind.
And for that matter in the abilities of the mind in general.>>
Enjoying the rest of it !?
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 - 20:54:09 BST