Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 08:57:02 +0100
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Ontology (was Meme Conference)
In-Reply-To: <28aef4d7.24734974@aol.com>
In message <28aef4d7.24734974@aol.com>, JakeSapien@aol.com writes
>In a message dated 5/17/99 9:52:55 AM Central Daylight Time,
>robin@faichney.demon.co.uk writes:
>
><< Incidentally, I'd suggest that evolution beyond naive realism would
> allow those memeticists who are not Buddhists, or thus inclined, to
> accept Blackmore's message as meaning that the only place for the self
> IN MEMETICS is that of a highly successful memeplex. There being more
> to life, of course, than memetics! >>
>
>hmmmmm....
>
>Evolving beyond? Which direction is that?
It's just a metaphor. Admittedly, one perhaps a little ill-chosen in
this context. But there's no need to worry about it.
>What exactly is "naive realism"?
The belief that the meaning of "real" is context-independent -- or, if
you prefer, that it's a scientific concept.
>Moving on.
>
>The existence of selves are not reducible to merely successful
[snip]
I don't think there's any point in going over all that again.
-- Robin Faichney Visit The Conscious Machine at http://www.conscious-machine.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