Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA05886 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:04:33 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D1E@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: The Demise of a Meme Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:01:31 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
<Yes, but science is also memetic in the sense that it's a body of
theories
> and theories are nothing but memes.>
>
Well, that indeed is the contention isn't it.
<Seems very clear to me, everything science is good at, religion is
no
> good at. And vice versa.>
>
Well its pretty obvious I think religion's good for nothing.
<I don't recall saying anything about revelation.>
You believe that through meditation, you will achieve some kind of
altered state (conceptual emptiness you say below) in which one better
perceives/understands life the universe and everything, right?
> >> This
> >> is a faith, because such revelation is idiosyncratic and
> non-transferable-
> >> you can't teach that "insight" to anyone, they must experience it for
> >> themselves,
>
<You mean like people experiencing scientific understanding for
themselves?>
If that understanding is a product of empirical testing of
hypotheses, and is reproduced by others, then it can be said to be
scientific understanding. It matters not that the guy who saw the structure
of benzene in a dream, got his inspiration that way, the only reasons people
remember that is because empirical work backed that idea up.
> > but in attempting to do so they undoubtedly will experience
> > something idiosyncratic.
>
<What precisely does "idiosyncratic" mean there?>
Meditation, and the sensations it produces are specific to the
individual, and the same sensations are not reproducable in others. If
Buddha did indeed say 'find your own way' isn't this what he meant?
>> Where's the equivalence to science as a method of
>> knowledge acquisition in that?
<Who ever said Buddhism or any other religion could be equivalent to
> science as a method of knowledge acquisition?>
>
Then, assuming pursuit of knowledge is the goal, why bother to use
anything other than science?
<Conceptual emptiness can be a good thing! I aim to experience it
> every day. And show me a scientific paper that doesn't borrow from
> earlier sources. Might I remind you of a quote that contains the phrase
> "the shoulders of giants"?>
>
Touche :-)
The difference is that religious myths are always claimed to be
original. Lloyd Webber doesn't exactly highlight his robbing of earlier
composer's work, whilst most religions like to pretend the world didn't
exist before their religion began, hence it's only the year 2001 in
Christianity, and what... something like 1432 in the Islamic calendar.
Vincent
> --
> Robin Faichney
> Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org
> (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 Mar 27 2001 - 11:07:06 BST