Re: Purported mystical "knowledge"

From: Robin Faichney (robin@reborntechnology.co.uk)
Date: Sun Sep 17 2000 - 10:00:06 BST

  • Next message: Douglas Brooker: "Re: Purported mystical "knowledge""

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA28417 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:24:15 +0100
    Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:00:06 +0100
    From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: Purported mystical "knowledge"
    Message-ID: <20000917100006.C957@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    References: <200009142049.QAA28199@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> <200009161917.PAA18118@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> <39C3DBD9.A6DECE06@fcol.com> <3.0.5.32.20000916205156.0081aac0@mailhost.rongenet.sk.ca>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i
    In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20000916205156.0081aac0@mailhost.rongenet.sk.ca>; from hawkeye@rongenet.sk.ca on Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 08:51:56PM -0600
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 08:51:56PM -0600, Lloyd Robertson wrote:
    > At 04:45 PM 16/09/00 -0400, Robert (Bob) Grimes wrote:
    > >Folks,
    > >
    > >Unfortunately, when I hear the terms "mysticism" or "spirituality,"
    > >there is a great tendency for me to equate it with religion, even though
    > >it may not be appropriate. I can handle "spirituality" as I do consider
    > >myself "spiritual" in the sense of appreciating non material concepts
    > >and relationships where they do not respond or are seem, at first,
    > >inaccessible through the scientific method. Still, I do realize that
    > >such concepts are products of material processes and, perhaps, probably
    > >products of material processes where not understood in that manner.
    > >
    > Bob, what do you think of the idea that all things spiritual, including the
    > secular spirituality you appear to espouse, are part of the memetic world?
    >
    > It seems to me that a lot of time has been spent on this listserver
    > attempting to find memes in neurons or in behavior, that is, in the
    > physical world as an attempt to make them appear "real". Conversely
    > Blackmore declares the self, a particular kind of memeplex, to be
    > "illusion" i.e., not real. Perhaps there is a non-material reality after
    > all and memetics is an attempt to scientifically study that which was
    > previously inaccessible thru the scientific method.

    The "non-material reality" consists of information -- though it's very
    solidly based on matter. Memes are items of information, encoded in
    both neural and behavioural patterns. When someone observes another's
    behaviour, the meme travels from behaviour to brain, changing its form
    from behavioural to neural encoding. When that person subsequently
    performs the same behaviour, the process is reversed. The uncertainty
    is that inherent in any en/de/recoding process: the outcome depends not
    only on what "went into" the carrier, but also what key is used to get
    it out again.

    IMHO :-)

    -- 
    Robin Faichney
    

    =============================================================== 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 : Sun Sep 17 2000 - 10:25:21 BST