Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA18968 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:42:33 GMT Message-ID: <001d01c1bb39$36a81680$0ec2b3d1@teddace> From: "Dace" <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: ality (cont'd) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:38:12 -0800 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001A_01C1BAF6.27923920" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > > I'm going to be blunt. I wish you would quit wasting our time here.
> >I understand that it's frustrating to be confronted with a refutation of
> >your cherished beliefs for which you have no answer. But getting me to
> >shut up won't change anything.
> Yes it will. It will mean that people with same basic assumptions can have
> a discussion about their common interests.
When everyone has the same basic assumptions, all you get is catechism.
> It is like trying to have a discussion on punctuated equilibrium when
> someone keeps interrupting you to let everyone know that actually God
> created the Earth.
Already dealt with this false analogy. While God is neither verifiable nor
falsifiable, natural memory is a scientific hypothesis, with plenty of
evidence in favor. I've already presented some of the evidence on this
list. I suggest you take a look at Rupert Sheldrake's *The Presence of the
> > > Your real interest in not in memes but in 'morphic fields'.
> >Ad hominem. Not that it makes the slightest difference, but my real
> >interest is in the question of freedom. That's what got me started down
> >this road.
> Yes and that where why you keep on insisting on this mind through time
> thing. Because you are emotionally unable to accept that you are caused
> by the physical world. Your thinking is ultimately not fact driven but
> emotion driven.
When people make comments like this, it's because they're frustrated. They don't know how to deal with an argument they haven't even begun to
comprehend, so they hurl insults.
> > > Your definition of memes requires acceptance of those ideas
> >How can that be when I haven't mentioned morphic theory in months?
> All then lets look at your definition. According to you ideas and
> behaviors start out being reproduced 'intentionally'. In the case of the
> Southern accent example the intention may be subconscious.
This is incoherent. What I said was that memes can get started either through intention, which is strictly conscious, or creativity, which is mostly
> Then after a
> while according to you, the ideas or behaviors take on a life of their own
> and are reproduced without further subconscious human intention. At that
> point they become memes. When does this magical point occur when
> subconscious intentional reproduced behaviors turn into memes? Just
> after a while. It's really hard to say isn't it?
The distinction I'm making is exactly the same as the standard psychological distinction between intention and habit. I'm simply applying it to culture instead of the individual mind. The boundary is fluid because that's the way it is with subjective existence.
> In fact it is a meaningless
> distinction that no one would have any reason to accept unless....hmm..
> maybe after being reproduced enough times they create a morphic
> impression or something of that sort?
You don't need morphic theory to distinguish intention from habit, whether it's personal habit or memetic. This is yet another fallacy, known as "poisoning the well."
> Isn' t that what that otherwise
> useless definition is about? Because according to you a behavior can
> be reproduced even subconsciously in its beginning stages without
> alteration and still not be a meme because it hasn't happened enough
It's a meme when it becomes habituated among a a group of people.
> > > No one here accepts your ideas
> > > and after a while people just give up trying to argue with you.
> >Appealing to the crowd. Well, at least you've switched over to another
> >fallacy. How refreshing.
> In fact Ted convince a different crowd and I would be happy to listen to
> you. Go to the cognitive scientists and push your hypothesis on them. I
> am not a cognitive scientist. I have some interest in it but for the
> purposes of developing memetics I think it makes more sense to start
> with the same assumptions accepted by recognized authorities in the
> field. If you can get some noted experts in the field to start quoting
> Sheldrake and yourself then I would be more than willing to take a second
An elaborate rationalization for telling me to shut up and go away. Relax, Ray. These discussions run their course in due time. I'll be moving on soon enough.
> Ray Recchia
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 : Fri Feb 22 2002 - 01:00:06 GMT