Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA09538 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 12 Sep 2000 02:47:49 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000911214453.0079cb00@megalink.net> X-Sender: abyss@megalink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 21:44:53 -0400 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Kurt Young <abyss@megalink.net> Subject: RE: Article, A Solipsistic View On Memetics In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017459F7@inchna.stir.ac.uk > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
How memetics effect Stress Levels to the survivability of the organisim?
At 12:56 PM 9/11/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi Kenneth,
>
>Thanks for this treatise.
>
>I can offer some counterpoints, in a limited fashion, but see what you
>think.
>
>I would recommend filtering your thesis through alternative, even
>contradictory models to see if your ideas hold up.
>
>Solipsism remains appealing to many due to the evidence from neuroscience,
>that you mention, about our senses, how we see, for example, with our brains
>working in a kind of feedback loop, such that much of what we see is
>generated internally from stored memory, and not a product of the external
>world.
>
>The thing is, the findings of neuroscience are only problematic for people
>whose thinking rests within, or has emerged from religious ideas- the
>special status of humans; the privileged nature of human thinking; and the
>later secular development, within that tradition, of individualism. The
>notion that the "I" is to a great extent is a construct of the brain-
>perhaps shaped memetically through the course of a life to the extent that
>individuality appears to emerge- is quite frightening to many (hence all the
>how to prevent infection stuff at the end of Brodie's and Blackmore's books-
>to my mind, akin to saying let's do all we can to get rid of the nasty genes
>that give us brains, but that's another issue).
>
>BUT, turn the argument on its head for a moment. Let's assume that external
>reality does exist independently of our perception of it, and acknowledge
>that perception to be imperfect, hence we can't "know" everything about the
>external world. How would we test this alternative theory? Well, given the
>restrictions on our perceptual capacity, we would have to look for material
>signs of perception in other people/animals. We'd use our existing senses,
>and then use our physical capabilities, to investigate deeper: we'd touch
>and smell people to see if our eyes were deceiving us; then perhaps we'd try
>to talk to them- more importantly we'd ask them questions about their
>internal (i.e. unobservable) state ('How are you?' 'Are you real?' etc.
>etc.). Then we would have to make a judgement about just how possible it
>was that the other person did actually exist.
>
>Of course, this goes on all the time, this is how human society essentially
>functions. We all assume to the best of our ability that all the other
>people we meet are real, and are experiencing ourselves as real too.
>Moreover, we are constantly trying to develop ways of understanding how our
>perception works, and whether or not other forms of intelligence can have a
>sense of self. So, we do mirror tests (and others) on animals, and we test
>artifical intelligence programmes on humans (e.g. those test where people
>are 'chatting' to a computer via e-mail, and they have to guess whether or
>not it's a computer or another person).
>
>The fact that our perceptions are imperfect- the product of evolution, not
>design- creates gaps which can be exploited by memes. But, it is only
>because enough consensus has emerged about the existence of the external
>world and the people in it (and here I mean an everyday consensus not a
>scientific one), thus resulting in the development of a complex
>communication system (language), now augmented by many other forms of
>communication (painting, writing etc.), that memes can spread.
>
>Memes spread because of what we share, not because of our differences. The
>vocabulary of any meme is what is spread, not the perception it evokes,
>produces in any individual. Think, for example, about religions, one of the
>most contested elements of memetics. To my mind, it is not the belief
>itself which spreads (i.e. the psychological state of belief), but the
>doctrines of that faith. People 'infected' with that faith will then
>display very different emotional, psychological and behavioural traits
>whilst all being able to recount large chunks (if not all) of the doctrine.
>The same is true of any paradigmatic idea, be it Darwinism, Relativity,
>Marxism, or whatever. Memes take advantage of their variability of meaning
>that exists in every form of communication.
>
>This is why religious doctrines, political speeches, propaganda, advertising
>messages etc. etc., all usually contain rhetorical banalities. Success or
>failure of a deliberate message rests to a degree on walking a tightrope
>between being too specific to catch many people's attention, and too general
>for enough people to equate it with anything particular. (Context is
>absolutely vital in this, which is why so many of the persuasive industries
>either get it wrong most of the time, or mis-understand why they
>occasionally get it right- they think it's all in the message). it doesn't
>matter whether a message means the same thing to everyone, but that the
>message generates ideational responses from as many people as possible.
>
>Anyway, I'm drifting off the point here. What I'm trying to get to here is
>that it seems to me that memetics is inherently based in an acceptance of
>external reality- and our ability (however imperfect) to acquire some degree
>of knowledge about that external reality. Memetics assumes a) that there
>are social phenomena that spread through any given culture, and that b) it
>is possible to study the processes and mechanisms of how social phenomena
>spread through cultures. With solipsism a) is a figment of the
>imagination, and thus b) cannot follow from it. What then does a
>solipsistic perspective on memetics actually offer from an empirical point
>of view- what do we study?
>
>Vincent
>
>
>
>===============================================================
>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 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 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 02:48:58 BST