Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA07427 (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 15:27:26 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D24@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 15:24:17 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Ok. so the first bit here was where do I stand on theories as memes,
and science- as theories- as memetic.
There seems to me to be qualitative differences in the testability
of scientific theories as opposed to other kinds of theories, that may, I
stress may, make them less likely to be memetic in the sense you mean here.
After all, scientific theories demonstrated to be false by experiment or
observation will usually (eventually) be rejected, whereas, say, many
cultural beliefs will persist in spite of contradictory evidence (such as an
end of the world cult who keep changing the date as nothing happens). If
memes were in minds, then it would be in such theories that I would expect
them to exist. Moreover, many kinds of theories preclude investigation,
whereas scientific ones demand investigation, so memetic survival is not so
easy with scientific theories IMHO.
If scientific theories that have been successfully tested to the
experimenter's satisfaction are still in your view memes, then these are the
"positive" kind of memes, that way back in the thread I was mentioning, that
it seems to be would be harmful to try and rid oneself from.
<That statement would carry more weight if you didn't seem to think
that
> religion is supposed to be good for gathering facts.>
>
Well, what else is it supposed to be good for? Surely the appeal of
most religions is their claim to revealed truth- and_the_truth, mind, not
just some approximation to it. If they didn't claim that, then what's their
appeal, what's their utility to the individual? Once you acknowledge the
flaw in such claims, all the rest falls away.
<I never used the word "revelation", and I was wary about what you
> meant by it. First, in meditation, nothing is perceived other than the
> contents of your own mind. However, in various ways, just that can help
> us understand all kinds of stuff. Mainly, it can help you understand
> yourself. But, to the extent other people are like you, it can help
> you understand them too. And then, regarding the rest of the world,
> a quiet mind can allow stuff that's "bubbling under" to come fully into
> consciousness. Of course, that's still just thought *about* the world,
> theory rather than observation, but it often seems that a reduction in
> quantity of conscious activity leads to an improvement in quality.
> Ie, that we often seem to have a lot of good stuff "bubbling under".
> Of course there's only one way to find out!>
>
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing the potential personal
benefits of mediation as you outline them here, but your last line here
implies revelation- that you can only find out by doing, and by doing a
specific kind of thing, which if you do it right then you'll see (much the
same line is given, and the same benefits espoused in my Tai Chi class, so
I'm not completely set in stone to such views- expect that Tai Chi teaches
you self defence as well).
<And if he hadn't had the dream, or some other equivalent insight,
there
> would have been no idea to test.>
>
But it's not the origin of ideas that matters- it's their validity.
<Nobody is saying religion or meditation is any use for testing
empirical
> hypotheses, for gawd sake! Only that testing empirical hypotheses is
> not the only game in town.>
>
Of course. But why do so many people insist that the fictions they
tell themselves so they can get to sleep at night and deal with the
pressures of the modern world, are real in whatever sense of the word you
want to take that? I have a blind spot to this. For me acknowledging our
fantasies is fine, indulging in them also (depending on the harm to other
done by them), but pretending they're real is delusional and dangerous to
the individual and to others.
<The same sensations are reproducible where people are willing to
perform
> the experiment. (Of course that can't be directly observed, but the
> circumstantial evidence is extremely strong.)>
>
Well, let's agree to disagree on this one. There are both social
conventions and pressures on how people relate physical experiences to
others (e.g. near death experiences intepreted as seeing heaven in Christian
countries). I wouldn't convict on such evidence.
< What the Buddha said was, we all need to be actual experimenters,
not just camp followers. Seems like a good idea to me.>
Like in 'The Life of Brian' when he says 'You're all individuals!'
and the crowd as one say 'Yes, we are all individuals'. The terms of your
experimentation though have been delimited by Buddha- but why trust his
judgement?
<The methods of science are far too indirect to compete with
meditation
> as a way of finding out about yourself (which is not to say that they
> have nothing to offer there). They also fail to generate values, and
> are inadequate for the generation of testable hypotheses, for which
> imagination/creativity/reverie/etc is required. Regarding empirical
> testing of testable hypotheses, of course, science is infinitely
> superior.>
>
We covered this in the other post.
<Saying you prefer science to religion because it involves empirical
> testing, is like saying you prefer hammers to screwdrivers because
> they're much better for hammering things.>
>
Saying one prefers science to religion is like saying one prefers to
use tools to put a piece of furniture together, rather than praying to God
that it'll put itself together- although since I am incredibly inept at DIY-
sorry home improvement for yanks- putting furniture together is one of the
few occasions when I do exclaim to god :-)
Vincent
===============================================================
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 - 15:30:00 BST