Re: The Demise of a Meme

From: Chris Taylor (Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Mar 28 2001 - 14:30:00 BST

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "RE: The Demise of a Meme"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA11328 (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 14:33:06 +0100
    Message-ID: <3AC1E758.4DB5AC34@bioinf.man.ac.uk>
    Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:30:00 +0100
    From: Chris Taylor <Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk>
    Organization: University of Manchester
    X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
    X-Accept-Language: en
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme
    References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D2B@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    My surmise of Robin's Buddhism is that it is more like yoga than
    anything else - a manual for self control which happens to have a lot of
    baggage with it about the originators of this particular route to
    (temporary) self-ablation, therefore I can see why he would assert that
    it wasn't a 'religious' thing. OK tear me to bits now...

    Change of thread...
    > 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.

    You need to go the whole hog to explain the persistence of falsifiable
    (or pathetic) beliefs - if we are *nothing* but memes, then fitness is
    determined solely by the degree to which a meme is compatible with
    resident memes (your 'mind'). Dead easy! Most of these memes get in
    early, and therefore define the selective environment for later
    arrivals. This gives us our tendency to try to support what we already
    think. From the outside this looks like cherry picking to reinforce a
    point of view, but I think it's a deeper process than that. You usually
    have to undermine the hardcore residents to get them out - for example,
    dicrediting a leading proponent of an idea to remove the foundation for
    it. This can be a bad thing though (none of us goes around funerals
    telling the relatives that there's no god); fundamental shifts can feed
    through a mind undermining all sorts of stuff, including personality
    fundamentals, through all sorts of weird and wonderful
    interdependencies.

    I heard about an interesting illusion on the radio last night -
    apparently if you look at the back side of a mask, then pull back far
    enough (a few metres) the concave often pops out to look convex, because
    (according to the guy) our [memetic] predisposition to see faces
    (uniformly convex) overules the (slightly less detailed) sensory
    evidence. This is sort of a microcosm of what I was on about in the last
    paragraph.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     Chris Taylor (chris@bioinf.man.ac.uk)
     http://bioinf.man.ac.uk/ »people»chris
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ===============================================================
    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 - 14:35:42 BST