Re: Purported mystical "knowledge"

From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Thu Oct 05 2000 - 01:37:45 BST

  • Next message: Brent Silby: "Re: Purported mystical "knowledge""

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA03577 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 5 Oct 2000 01:35:39 +0100
    Message-Id: <200010050032.UAA20975@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net>
    From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:37:45 -0500
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: Purported mystical "knowledge"
    In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.20001004183717.008376d0@mailhost.rongenet.sk.ca>
    References: <20000917100006.C957@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b)
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Date sent: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:37:17 -0600
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk, memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    From: Lloyd Robertson <hawkeye@rongenet.sk.ca>
    Subject: Re: Purported mystical "knowledge"
    Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    > At 10:00 AM 17/09/00 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:
    > >
    > >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.
    > >
    > Granted that information (defined broadly to include misinformation) is
    > "non-material". Granted, as well, that all of this information is solidly
    > based on the physical world. If we view this "information" as being made up
    > of memes that may have properties of attraction and repulsion with respect
    > to other memes. And if this means that various "memeplexes" evolve
    > competing for mind-space (perhaps defined by the neural networks of which
    > you refer) then, using Dennett's ecosystem analogy, we have another level
    > or plane of existance which cannot be Lamarkian because, at the mass level,
    > it evolves independently of any "will" the communicative "bags of mostly
    > water" hosts may have.
    >
    Actually, umm, no. A cognitive ecosystem is quite different from
    the Gaian ecosystem in the sense that mutation and selection for
    replication are to some degree a function of conscious decision,
    will, innovation and experimentation. Most memes 'mean'
    something to people, rather than just blindly being, as are flora and
    fauna for our planet, and are intentionally rather than randomly
    modified and selected for and/or against by us on the basis of
    these meanings, and what they mean to and for us.
    >
    > Not that the memeplexes have any will. They merely survive to evolve based
    > on the number of minds they have collected algorythmically. Any benefit
    > accruing to the holders of those minds is incidental - like the benefit
    > cattle have by being protected from wolves. There are plenty of examples,
    > however, where successful memeplexes have produced behaviors detremental to
    > individual well being.
    >
    > In summary the gods do exist. But not as discrete thinking entities. They
    > exist as "body parts" of certain successful (and an even larger number of
    > unsuccessful) memeplexes. Another name for the spiritual world is
    > "memeworld" (perhaps we can get Kevin Costner to star in a movie of that
    > name). And the varios sects of Buddhism also have places in that world as
    > does the secular spirituality of humanism.
    >
    Well, the philosophy of comparative religion, as opposed to any
    religion in particular, has long compared and contrasted faith-based
    systems. The gods do not have to exist in and of themselves for
    the idea of gods to exist in the minds of human beings; the two are
    not identical.
    >
    > Whattya think?
    >
    > Lloyd
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 : Thu Oct 05 2000 - 01:36:57 BST