Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA17976 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:49:23 GMT Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:44:35 -0800 Message-Id: <200112122244.fBCMiZk01015@mail8.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116) X-Originating-Ip: [216.76.254.200] From: "Joe Dees" <joedees@addall.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Definition please Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
> "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Re: Definition pleaseDate: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:01:01 +0100
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
>Hi Joe,
>> >If you have trouble with how it is possible that the brain got problems
>> >adding
>> >something simple as two or three digits, and Joe in fact says that
>> >consciousness arose because of increased complexitiy, how can we hold on
>to a hypothesis that shows that when the information threshold is low, memes
>> >propagate better !?
>> >
>> Simpler is easier to deal with, even for complex systems. No
>contradiction there.
>
><< Well yeah !
>But, atleast in my opinion, it seems that the notion about complexitiy is
>one
>of a human nature. I don 't think there is complexitiy as such in nature.
>Only
>in the mind of the receiver there is complexity !
>Nature is just an accumulation of simple things working together.
>Is a termite aware of the complexity wherein she lives !?
>
>Actually, what makes me wonder, is the notion of complexity something
>needed to " confirm " any thing simple !? And why, for that matter, needs
>something so complex as a human being, such a simple thing as sex
>to propagate !? Why does any complex system needs simple things to
>evolve !? Why the complexity if anything can be done by simple things !?
>
>How is it possible, for what reason... are great amounts of information
>from within the DNA not being used in the final transfer_ great amounts of
>info are being cut out ( introns).
>How more info in advance there has been cut out, how better the trans-
>lation of the DNA- code into characteristics will be. The same can be
>said about memes.
>Why such a complexity, why building such a complex system of gathering
>info and than in the end only use a fraction of it !?
>Or do we suppose that somewhere such complexity is being used as
>a kind of selection environment !?
>Could be, no !?
>
>> There is a book called THE NUMBER SENSE that maintains that we are not
>especially mathematically gifted as a result of our complexity-spawned
>self-consciousness, beyond being able to handle judgements as to whether
>which of two small quantities is greater. let us remember that computers
>were once termed number-crunchers, and it was in the mathematical domain
>that humans were first cybernetically surpassed.
>
><< So our complexity sits in the way of the ability to handle great quanties
>of numbers !? So, again, why than the complexity !?
>I understand that it could act as some kind of selection environment like I
>mentioned above, but here it doesn 't make sense at all !
>Here you have a complex system of complexity which blocks the way for
>doing something complex !
>This seems to me as pointless natural efforts, it is just a waste of time,
>energy and a waste of a very great amount of simple, useful things.
>
>Regards,
>
>Kenneth
>
There is a term in systems theory called synergy; basically, it represents the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and instead is comprised of the parts plus their interrelations. It is just such synergy that permits the emergence of novel properties in complex systems that cannot be divined from the parts considered in isolation. Examples are the tipping point in a pile of sand grains, the skin that forms on the surface of water, and, of course, recursive self-conscious awareness. In this sense, Frederich Engels got at least one thing right, when he stated that sufficient quantity spawned the creation of novel qualities.
Of course, we are not perfect, not only numerically, but in a myriad other ways. The blind forces of evolution are a tinkerer's nightmare, and do not guarantee its products efficiency that would be present if there were such an entity as a conscious intentional engineer designing and implementing plans. Nature is pointless.
As far as our genetic makeup, there is a lot of redundancy and useless garbage in our genomes, for the same (non)reasons.
>
>===============================================================
>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
------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
===============================================================
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 Dec 12 2001 - 22:58:42 GMT