Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA11159 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:56:33 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D2B@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: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:53:23 +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
<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!>
>
Wait a minute, it's not me that's being talking about ridding
oneself of 'memetic thralldom' is it? I have stated quite clearly that I
think being a human being means being cultural, and thus memetic, and to try
and rid oneself of_all_memes is in my view a dreadful thing not a positive
thing. It is precisely in this sense that I meant that some memes, if
indeed they are memes, have demonstrable utility and benefits for
individuals and society at large. What is interesting to me is not memes
that have demonstrable validity and utility, like scientific theories (if
one sees them as such), but those that do not, or at least have questionable
credibility or utility, which in my opinion would include religious
doctrines. What makes such things persist then becomes of interest as they
may reveal most overtly the processes by which cultural information is
transmitted.
<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.>
>
I have a broader problem with the idea of ideas as memes, from the
memes in minds/artefacts discussion. Religions, or religious beliefs,
depending on one's position in that debate (or both), are a good site for
memetic discussion, because one can identify aspects which are inherently
irrational and demonstrably inaccurate (e.g. transubstantiation and Genesis'
version of creation) yet persist in culture. It becomes evident from such
things that something else must be involved in cultural transmission, some
process that takes advantage of some aspects of human behaviour.
This is not to say that scientific theories must not be regarded as
memetic, only that surely it's more interesting to find out why some
ideas/theories persist despite contradictory evidence, rather than those
that persist because of confirmatory evidence, or are rejected when
confronted with contradictory evidence? I think that this may give us a
greater insight into processes of cultural transmission. Remember some
critics of memetics reckon cultural tranmission occurs because of one simple
thing- utility- and think we're all wasting our time.
I've said on the list already that my initial attraction to memetics
was because it appeared to offer a reason for widespread religious beliefs,
but I've long since acknowledged the problem of seeing beliefs as memetic.
I don't believe discussing the desireability of ridding onself of memes, and
questioning the crediblity of claims that using buddhism achieves this,
which seems to me to be oxymoronic, constitutes a mis-use of memetics itself
or debates around it.
<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!>
>
I think you're determined to try and bring science to the level of
credibility of religion to legitimate your beliefs. That's your
prerogative, but it's cultural relativism- not all things are of equal value
and credibility just because they're all cultural.
<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"?>
>
I know you're not a conventional true believer, Robin. But again,
what's the point of religions if they're not about the external world? And,
of course, religions are aout the external world- dictating behaviours and
practices of the followers which impacts on them and everyone else around
them- or are you a buddhist only when meditating? Does it not have
consequences for your social interactions? If so, then your beliefs are
consequential for the external, social world.
<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.>
>
But your methodology has no yardstick by which to judge if its
appropriate to the task to which its directed. I'd agree on the majority of
us having neuroses, I know I'm not immune to them, but I have nothing but
your (and other buddhists) say-so that buddhist practices could do anything
about them.
<You think scientific results can be checked without replicating the
> experiment?>
>
If you and I meditate, there may be good odds on differential
experiences (e.g. due to differences in physiology and psychology), but in
principle, the reproducability of scientific results are not dependent upon
the person doing them- the intepretation of the results may be of course.
One may question the applicability of which experiment to use to investigate
which phenomena, and this happens every day in science, of course. But it
doesn't change the basic point- science has yardsticks, however imperfect,
for its practices- religion does not.
<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.>
>
What are you saying here, that the dream is as important as the
actual structure of benzene? The structure of benzene is not reliant on
that dream, and the structure would have emerged through experiment
eventually anyway. Without experiment it was just a dream.
<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?>
>
Sure.
Look, I'm not on a deliberate wind-up here, trying to annoy you.
I persist because I can't see why you are unable to recognise that
your beliefs are essentially no different to all of these other believers-
at the base. All you keep saying in response to me, or Wade, or others
who've questioned your position, is "Oh, but my position isn't the same as x
or y, so you can't tar me with the same brush". But fundamentally you share
the same fallacy of faith, whether you like it or not. Now we can agree to
disagree over a) whether or not this is a fallacy, b) whether or not such a
fallacy in personally/socially harmful or beneficial, and c) whether or not
such a discussion has anything to do with memetics or not. I suspect we'd
both agree that only the alst of these is really relevant and worth pursuing
on this list.
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 : Wed Mar 28 2001 - 13:59:20 BST