RE: Words and memes: criteria for acceptance of new belief or meme

From: Jeremy Bradley (
Date: Thu Feb 28 2002 - 04:12:57 GMT

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence"

    Received: by id GAA08030 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 06:52:44 GMT
    X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be green-machine
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
    Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 15:12:57 +1100
    From: Jeremy Bradley <>
    Subject: RE: Words and memes: criteria for acceptance of new belief or  meme
    In-Reply-To: <>
    References: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
    Precedence: bulk

    At 03:13 PM 18/02/02 -0800, Richard wrote:

    >A good religion is part of a default set of narratives. Rational empiricists
    >get hung up on the myth aspect of religions, taking it on blind faith that a
    >make-believe story cannot possibly have any value. This is an irrational
    >position and a blind spot in the worldviews of many smart people.
    >Also see my essay at
    >Richard Brodie

    Yes yes yes
    "A good religion is part of a default set of narratives".
    The only comment that I would add to this Richard is, that for a religion
    to be peacefully accepted it must conform to a prior set of cultural
    narratives. It is only after the religion is established that it becomes a
    default ethos.
    In prior postings I had written that I thought that a 'meme' was a 'code'
    rather than a 'replicating idea'. I now have converted to the latter
    ideology. In my previous work I had assumed that a meme was the strand of
    coded information which enabled a culture to be the arbiter of appropriacy
    and thereby preserve itself by defending against 'inappropriate' ideas and
    beliefs. Like a cultural DNA my meme would be the criteria for acceptance
    of new belief. I even 'mapped' the criteria of two divergent cultures to
    show the underlying causes for their ideological disparity. Thanks to the
    members of this list, I now see my earlier work as a cultural parallel of
    the genome project (another word? - menome? cneme?).
    I think that this is the answer to those looking for artificial
    intelligence, predictive models, soft maths etc. Intelligence is only
    recognised as such by like minds; there is no objective or homogenous
    intelligence and even 'common knowledge' is only common to sub-sets within
    cultures. For example, my applause at Richard's statement does not mean
    that Richard is a genius to my car salesman (Christian fundie) brother. Oh
    no, to him Richard's statement is heresy and brands him as an idiot.
    More on this later.

    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 28 2002 - 07:55:35 GMT