Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA00622 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:20:42 +0100 Message-Id: <200010100137.VAA22817@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:42:22 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Purported mystical "knowledge" In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.20001007122556.00833100@mailhost.rongenet.sk.ca> References: <200010050032.UAA20975@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Date sent: 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"
Send 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".
>
Free will is not absolute, but neither can it be absolutely absent;
that's the argument that Maurice Merleau-Ponty won against Jean-
Paul Sartre. Freedom can only manifest itself within a field of
relative unfreedom with which it can be compared and contrasted;
otherwise neither freedom nor necessity can have definitions, since
they mutually define by correlative opposition. For either to be
absolute reduces the other to nonexistence, and deprives either of
the possibility of definition-by-contrast.
>
> 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.
>
There are, of course, trends and influences, but they are not
absolutely binding upon the individual. They DO, however, manifest
themselves statistically, for if one behavior is more likely than
another, that likelihood will probabilistically predominate (although
even there it will not be absolute), even as it cannot serve as an
absolute individual predictor.
>
> 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.
>
Our internal cognitive ecosystems, as opposed to the environing
ecosystem, are purposive, self-conscious, significative, and
logical/rational, but not absolutely, and more so in some than in
others (of course).
>
> 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 : Tue Oct 10 2000 - 13:27:14 BST