Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA13748 (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 23:14:30 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 16:16:47 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Memetic Paradigms Message-ID: <3AC602EF.1837.3B4204@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010331143959.C478@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3AC48229.9444.16BB2D@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 12:55:05PM -0600 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 31 Mar 2001, at 14:39, Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 12:55:05PM -0600, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > On 30 Mar 2001, at 11:36, Robin Faichney wrote: > > > > >> They are
> not isolable atoms, like genes, > > > >> because their existence
> includes their relations; memes > > > >> necessarily relate to other
> memes, and these relations is part > > > >> and parcel of what
> constitutes the significances of the memes. > > > > > > > >Genes,
> generally, are highly interdependent too. What proportion > > > >of
> our genes, do you think, is *directly* concerned with > > >
> >replicating itself, rather than supporting a cluster, for which a > >
> > >few will arrange the replication of all? > > > > > > > None,
> actually. Since genes lack subjectivity, they cannot be said > > > to
> be concerned with anything. > > > > Deliberate obtuseness impresses
> nobody, Joe. > > > So why do you continuously employ it?
>
> Point to one instance.
>
When you insist that both following another's instructions and not
following them are proofs of deterninism.
>
> > > In other words, you agree that genes are just as interdependent as
> > > memes after all. You have done a complete about-face.
> > >
> > No, genes are NOT as interdependent as memes. The genes for
> > brown eyes are not connected whatsoever to male pattern
> > baldness, yet all meanings, as mutually correlatively defining, are
> > intertwined in the semiotic web, also referred to as the vicious
> > hermeneutic circle.
>
> That's just rhetoric. It's just as valid for me to say that all
> genes are connected as for you to say all meanings are connected. Both
> generalisations are so vast as to be almost meaningless. But I
> wouldn't claim that any meaning can stand alone, while you claimed
> that genes are "isolable atoms". Do you stand by that, or retract it?
>
Obviously, a gene for brown eyes cannot manifest in the absence
of a head growing, but it does not matter how many legs one has
(or have you stared in the Buddha-nature eyes of a dog lately?).
We can indeed tell what the codon boundaries of particular genes
are, and can isolate and correlate them in the laboratory; that's
what the Human Genome Project has been doing for the last
decade. Have you kept up with ANYTHING scientific in the last 20
years, or do you restrict yourself to eastern religion and empty
rhetoric?
> --
> 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 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 - 23:17:12 BST