Re: ality (cont'd)

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Fri Feb 22 2002 - 16:55:21 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: ality"

    Received: by id RAA20559 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:00:48 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Scott Chase" <>
    Subject: Re: ality (cont'd)
    Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:55:21 -0500
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Feb 2002 16:55:21.0737 (UTC) FILETIME=[B70ED790:01C1BBC1]
    Precedence: bulk

    >From: Ray Recchia <>
    >Subject: Re: ality (cont'd)
    >Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:50:23 -0500
    >At 04:38 PM 2/21/2002 -0800, you wrote:
    >> > > > 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
    >> > >your cherished beliefs for which you have no answer. But getting me
    >> > >shut up won't change anything.
    >> >
    >> > Yes it will. It will mean that people with same basic assumptions can
    >> > a discussion about their common interests.
    >>When everyone has the same basic assumptions, all you get is catechism.
    >Like the old catechism of 1+1 = 2.
    >> > 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
    >>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
    >> > > > 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
    >> > >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
    >> > by the physical world. Your thinking is ultimately not fact driven
    >> > 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.
    >I think I comprehend very well. Here is a snip from 'Tue, 11 Dec 2001
    >11:08:57 -0800 Re: Definition please' that I think pins down the emotional
    >difficulty you are having.
    >>Once you cross the line between the self-contained mental universe of
    >>humanity and the blind workings of the organic realm, there's nothing to
    >>stop you from descending all the way back to the most elementary bacteria.
    >You have a problem similar to that of creationists. While the
    >creationist's ego is threatened by a physical evolutionary continuum yours
    >is threatened by the notion that your thinking processes share a common
    >basis with other simpler organisms that also possess nervous systems.
    >> > > > 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
    >> > 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
    >You are right. It is incoherent.
    >> > Then after a
    >> > while according to you, the ideas or behaviors take on a life of their
    >> > and are reproduced without further subconscious human intention. At
    >> > 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
    >> > times.
    >>It's a meme when it becomes habituated among a a group of people.
    >It is an invalid analogy. The same meme is acquired by a mind once. Not
    >multiple times. There is no habitual acquisition of memes.
    >> > > > 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
    >> > >fallacy. How refreshing.
    >> >
    >> > In fact Ted convince a different crowd and I would be happy to listen
    >> > you. Go to the cognitive scientists and push your hypothesis on them.
    >> > 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
    >> > look.
    >>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.
    >There must be some list server on cognitive science out there that you can
    >join. Good luck.
    >Ray Recchia
    The usenet newsgroup bionet.neuroscience would be the proper place for Dace
    to present his arguments about the present state of memory research, where
    experts in neuroscience can evaluate them in the light of current knowledge.

    At there are some biologists (including developmental) who
    could likewise evaluate his ideas pertaining to developmental systems and

    "Evaluate" is a kinder, gentler use of verbs.

    Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:

    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 - 17:10:35 GMT