Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id GAA11292 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 31 Mar 2001 06:51:28 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [209.240.221.62] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:47:17 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F5658mjUMslWK88qQzz00006337@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2001 05:47:17.0906 (UTC) FILETIME=[0BBD9F20:01C0B9A6] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme
>Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:01:30 +0100
>
>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.
>
If the story of Kekule's stumbling on benzene's discovery via a dream is
true, this points to a possible importane of dreams on occasion. Denigration
of the supposed dream as source for the discovery would be close to an
example of the genetic fallacy. One might find a diamond in a cesspool if
someone accidently flushed said gem down the tiolet. It would still shine up
just the same.
>
> > 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?
>
>
People could very well gain immensely from reading fiction. Would the
fiction haters pull the rug from under the fiction lovers feet because the
stories aren't real, regardless if there's a moral to the story? Fairy tales
are chock full of entities which never existed, yet children seem to have
gained something, if nothing more than amusement, from reading these
traditional stories. If people can gain from practicing religion, more power
to them.
Also, how schorlarly or objective could someone be about the scientific
study of religion if they have nothing more than an axe to grind or a
predispotion to bash the adherents? I dislike having religionists shove
their doctrines down my throat or trying to inject school science curricula
with their metaphysical baggage, but I also have reservations about people
being forcefully converted to atheism by proselytes. It seems the virus
hunters have a mandate to stamp out the scourge of religion.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
===============================================================
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 : Sat Mar 31 2001 - 06:54:10 BST