Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA16664 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Thu, 21 Feb 2002 04:49:16 GMT X-Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Message-Id: <email@example.com> In-Reply-To: <010401c1b8dd$049d85c0$5e2ffea9@oemcomputer> References: <008901c1b8b2$ab9bf9e0$5e2ffea9@oemcomputer> <010401c1b8dd$049d85c0$5e2ffea9@oemcomputer> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 23:44:08 -0500 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: "Francesca S. Alcorn" <email@example.com> Subject: Re: Words and memes Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
>> > Yes, but there is more and more research out there which suggests
>> > that religious belief can have a positive impact on health (fitness
>> > increments).
>> > http://www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/thank_god_health.htm
>Again interesting article Frankie. It seems that religion
>still is useful in maintaing good health. The psychological
>basis stinks a little bit however, and should be replaced.
What do you mean? Are you trying to say that they should have
restated it in neuroscientific terms rather than psych? Or that you
disagree with the psych conclusions that they draw?
I see the combination of psychology and memetics as being potentially
very productive. Psychology is not as empirically based as some
might wish, but neuroscience is too much in it's infancy to map out
the territory covered by psych. It's very exciting to see
neuroscience able to explain more and more. The two are almost like
opposite sides of a bridge spanning a chasm, and at some point they
will meet. What psychology has to offer is that it has tried to
systematically describe the subjective experiences that neuroscience
describes chemically and biologically.
I see a link between this article and the other one about dopamine
and social status that I (honestly) didn't see when I first posted
them. Let's say that god really is the "big alpha male in the sky" -
then by "affiliating" with him, one could actually achieve the
neurochemical changes discussed in the other article - with dopamine
and decreased drug addiction. That might explain some of the health
benefits described in this article. Which raises the question if
"believing" a meme might not possibly produce quantifiable changes in
Would it be ethical to identify a population which has a high level
of conversion (prison for example?) and measure the D2 receptors
levels to establish a baseline and then do a followup a year or two
later with a matched group of convert/nonconverts?
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 21 2002 - 04:59:17 GMT