Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA03476 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 7 Oct 2000 19:11:21 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20001007122556.00833100@mailhost.rongenet.sk.ca> X-Sender: hawkeye@mailhost.rongenet.sk.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 12:25:56 -0600 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk, memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Lloyd Robertson <hawkeye@rongenet.sk.ca> Subject: Re: Purported mystical "knowledge" In-Reply-To: <200010050032.UAA20975@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> References: <3.0.5.32.20001004183717.008376d0@mailhost.rongenet.sk.ca> <20000917100006.C957@reborntechnology.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
At 07:37 PM 04/10/00 -0500, Joe E. Dees wrote:
>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
>
>> >
>> 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.
I think that the situation with regard to conscious decision, will and
rational thought are far more difficult than what you present, Joe. I
personally believe there is such a thing as will at least as applied to the
individual. How "free" that will is problematic. My belief in at least an
element of free will may be based more on my emotion of wanting to
entertain such a belief as opposed to any objective reality. On the other
hand, it seems to me that by experimentation and observation based on a
tentativeness of all belief we can approach objective reality and thereby
make meaningful choices. This, then, would allow us to excercise an
independant "will".
On the other hand, there is considerable evidence against this position at
least as applied to large groups of humans. Not too long ago, someone on
this list presented evidence that a physics program was effective in
predicting the behavior of crowds at football matches. The presence of the
odd individual, exercising rational thought, observing and, perhaps,
experimenting with different behaviors does not appear to effective in
preventing football riots. Rather, the size of the crowd, it's density and
the physical design of the exits appear to be better determinants of
rioting behavior.
The bell curve has been repeatedly demonstrated to have application to
human behavior. It seems to me that if rational thought were a major
determinant of human behavior the bell would not present, rather, an elipse
would present with the head of the elipse in the direction of the most
adaptive behavior. Indeed, there is evidence of some behaviors, such as
those associated with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, where a skewing of the bell
is evidenced in the direction of the maladaptive tail.
What about our much vaunted individual intelligence? I submit that it takes
discipline, energy and a tentative frame of mind to exercise that
intelligence a way compatible with "will". I think that for the most part
people exercise their intelligence in the direction of satisfying basic
body drives (e.g., I am horny therefore I spend 90% of my time figuring out
how I am going to get laid) or in the service of various memeplexes (e.g. I
want to feel holy therefore I spend 90% of my time appeasing the god or
gods of my "choice").
It is easy for us to see how the memeplexi of various Buddhists have
"infected" their work on memetics. It is even easier to demonstrate that
people who want to believe that there is such a thing as mystical knowledge
engage in a series of rationalizations to "prove" their desire. It is not
so easy for us to examine our own memeplexi to determine to what extent we
have been programmed to entertain our current beliefs. There may be no Gaia
but I see little evidence for the presence of a rational cognitive ecosystem.
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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 07 2000 - 19:14:04 BST