Re: Logic

From: Kenneth Van Oost (Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be)
Date: Thu Aug 09 2001 - 16:17:14 BST

  • Next message: Bill Spight: "Re: Convergence"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA10535 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 9 Aug 2001 15:37:22 +0100
    Message-ID: <002501c120e6$765da4e0$b706bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
    To: "memetics" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: Re: Logic
    Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 17:17:14 +0200
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: Dace <edace@earthlink.net>
    >
    > > > << You see, you too stick to the view that genes control everything,
    > > > epimemetic landscapes must be a function of the genes. Why !?
    > > > Why can 't it be that epimemetic landscapes control in what way, to
    > which
    > > > extend genes unfold themselves !?
    > >
    > > I'm arguing that memes have no relation whatsoever to genes. Memes are
    > > associated with thought. When enough people subscribe to a particular
    > > belief, such as the notion that evolution is a product of changing
    > > environmental conditions and random genetic mutation, then this belief
    > > becomes part of our collective memory.
    >
    > Hi Dace,
    >
    > Yes, I too think that evolution must be viewed as a twofold process,
    > where memes drives the genes these days.
    > Memes are indeed, of course associated with thought and IMO we
    > have to stop applying ' genetic- like ' explanations to describe the
    > memes themselves and the processes where they are involved in.
    >
    > A better way to describe our ' collective memory ' would be to say
    > that all our individualistic " beliefs " about a certain thing are so
    close
    > together that it would be difficult to seperate them.
    > The One is equal to the Many and we see it as the Same.
    >
    > All the individualistic alternatives look alike and resembles.
    > All the differencies all do resemble alike but may not be far out to
    > eachother so that we can't seperate them in ' individalistic belief
    traits'
    > and the resemblance must be up that close so that we can see a col-
    > lective image emerging.
    > In a way the collective memory is everywhere and nowhere and each
    > individual holds a piece.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Kenneth
    >
    > ( I am, because we are) for the quick return
    >

    ===============================================================
    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 Aug 09 2001 - 15:45:20 BST