Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA00261 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:20:19 +0100 Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:01:30 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Message-ID: <20010329110130.B535@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D2B@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D2B@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 01:53:23PM +0100 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 01:53:23PM +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> <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?
See below.
> 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.
I'll admit forgetting you said that -- but see below on this too.
> 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.
And the opportunity it affords you to do all the religion-bashing you
like is just a bonus, I suppose.
That "processes by which cultural information is transmitted" bit is
rubbish. At the most fundamental level, the processes are very simple,
and are roughly similar for all memes, religious, scientific or whatever.
If you want to know why people are susceptible to irrational beliefs, on
the other hand, the answer lies in psychology, not memetics. But then
psychology wouldn't give you such scope to display your prejudice,
would it?
> 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.
Have you forgotten how I explained that I don't believe in ridding
oneself of memes either, but rather in not clinging to or avoiding them?
I said in so many words that the brain is still full of memes, but I
try not to regard any of them as particularly "mine". Is there any
possibility of progress here, or are we doomed to keep slipping back
into entrenched positions?
> > 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.
Thanks Vincent. That's exactly what I was talking about. Your
determination to keep science superior -- and to do so using memetics,
if possible -- is blinding you to the simple truth. Which is that all
items of cultural information are, by definition, equally memetic.
And that has absolutely no implication as to their value! That's just
your baggage, which you really need to drop. Every item of cultural
information is a meme. What differentiates one broad area of culture
from another is the kind of qualities that the memes inhabiting it need
to survive. As in, empirical testability, etc. There is plenty scope
there for you to propound the superiority of science, but no, you have
to try to say it's somehow "less memetic". That is precisely what I was
saying you do, and you just provided a perfectly clear example of it,
and my point is made. Thanks again.
> > 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.
Of course my practices (not beliefs) are consequential. But we were
talking about revelations, not consequences. My point was that there's
a clear division of labour: science investigates the external world,
religion investigates the internal world. A religion that claims to
offer revelations about the material world is as far off-track as those
people who still believe in cold fusion. The fact that there may be
consequences in either direction is irrelevant.
> <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 think I'm quite a good judge of my mental state. Not perfect, I'm sure,
but good enough for practical purposes, in the real world.
> 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.
Why don't you check it out then? Or would you prefer someone else did
it for you?
> <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.
The main difference is that religion's yardsticks are primarily private,
so everyone has to do the experiment for themselves. If it was practical
-- which it obviously isn't -- that would be preferable in science too.
> <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.
Any and every experiment requires a null hypothesis. Without a clear
idea of what is being tested, there is no experiment. Whether from a
dream or some other "internal" "revelation": no idea, no experiment.
> 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.
That's easy. Because mine are tested every day. (Which makes them not
beliefs but working hypotheses.)
> 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".
I've said a fuck of a lot more than that, and either you're just not
bothering to think about it, or you're deliberately ignoring it. I hope
it's the former, but either way it kind of looks like I'm wasting my time,
doesn't it?
-- 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 : Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:34:05 BST