Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA10484 (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 09:58:35 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017459FC@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Article, A Solipsistic View On Memetics Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:56:07 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
OK- but how do we measure that beyond each self?
That's one problem with solipsism in that you can't empirically test any of
its assertions, since whatever you 'find' must be a product of your mind,
since the world only exists within it.
It becomes absurdly reductive.
On the other hand I see more clearly Kenneth's idea that memes may act
solipsistically, as if there were no other memes but them. But that's a
different point.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Kurt Young
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 2:44 am
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Article, A Solipsistic View On Memetics
>
>
> 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 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 - 09:59:39 BST