Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA08653 (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 21:49:02 +0100 Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 21:42:51 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Message-ID: <20010327214251.B1210@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D24@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D24@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 03:24:17PM +0100 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 03:24:17PM +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> 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.
I'm sorry Vincent, but you just demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding
of memetics.
"Memetic" does not mean "unscientific" or "irrational" or any other
variety of "bad". As you suggest below -- but implicitly deny in almost
everything else you write -- there are good memes, too. What memetics is,
is an evolutionary perspective on culture, so all of culture is covered,
the good and the bad equally. Cultural information -- memes -- is what's
passed on through behaviour and artifacts. There is no value judgement
in that! To say that scientific theories -- like all other theories,
and all other cultural information -- are nothing but memes, is not to
put them down in any way, however subtly or sophisticatedly!
Now, given what you say in your next paragraph, you might think what
I just said was rather heavy-handed, but there's a reason for that.
You've been around here what, a year? Two? Wade has been on this list,
and before that on virus where memetics is often discussed, for more
years than I care to remember (because I've been the same places over
the same period), and he tends to take the same tack. I think this is
worth making an issue out of. Memetics is not for you and Wade to use
to slag religion or anything else. If you try to misuse it it will bounce
back and hit you. Which is what's happening here: because anyone who has
been reading about and discussing and, yes, even lecturing on memetics,
not to understand that scientific theories are nothing but memes, is
extremely silly. And I think it's purely your attachment to memetics
as a put-down tool that has blinded you to the wider perspective.
> 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.
Indeed. And memetics is really not a great deal of help in deciding
which memes are beneficial and which detrimental, and anyone who thinks
it will do that is destined to be sadly disappointed. Science, rationality
and anything else you like are just as memetic as anything cultural you
care to mention -- even religion!
> <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.
Haven't you noticed yet that I'm not conventionally religious? Could it
possibly be your tendency to see red whenever the subject comes up that
gets in the way? Did I ever suggest that religion ever did or ever could
reveal anything about the "external world"?
> If they didn't claim that, then what's their
> appeal, what's their utility to the individual?
I can only speak for myself. The appeal to me is in the wisdom
about how the mind works. Buddhism (or the essence of it) is the
most thorough-going practical psychology I know. And that's after
doing a degree in psychology, a post-grad course on psychotherapy,
and having spent a couple of years in therapy myself. For anyone with
a mild-to-moderate neurosis -- which I contend includes at least 90%
of the general population -- the adoption of Buddhist practices could
be highly beneficial.
> 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).
You think scientific results can be checked without replicating the
experiment?
> <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.
If there are no ideas, there are no valid ideas. If two things are
both essential, to suggest that one is more important than the other is
just silly.
> <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
How the fuck should I know? This is like asking Wade to defend cold
fusion. Get this fucking straight, will you: your idea of religion
is not mine, and I have no interest in defending weak-willed fantasy,
fascistic puritanism, the Inquisition, or anything else that you happen
to associate with religion.
OK?
-- 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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 27 2001 - 21:54:51 BST