Re: Thoughts and Perceptions

From: Steve Drew (
Date: Mon Apr 22 2002 - 22:53:45 BST

  • Next message: "Re: Thoughts and Perceptions"

    Received: by id XAA02430 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 23:02:14 +0100
    X-Originating-IP: []
    User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.2509
    Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 22:53:45 +0100
    Subject: Re: Thoughts and Perceptions
    From: Steve Drew <>
    To: <>
    Message-ID: <>
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Apr 2002 21:56:12.0608 (UTC) FILETIME=[84966C00:01C1EA48]
    Precedence: bulk

    Hi Wade

    > Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:36:16 -0400
    > From: "Wade T.Smith" <>
    > Subject: Re: Thoughts and Perceptions
    > On Thursday, April 18, 2002, at 08:24 , Bill Spight wrote:
    >> Or do you think that
    >> there are true memes? If so, what?
    > Well, perhaps, but, who cares? As a standee upon the memes are behavior
    > side of the fence, all memes are true inherently by virtue of having
    > been performed....
    > And if one is on the memes as artifact side, artifacts which have strong
    > representational truth are true, truth being a correspondence sort in
    > this instance, although, as with behavior, its very existence is a truth.
    > If one, however, is dedicated to memes as brain/mind items, then, who
    > cares? Since when does a brain/mind need truth to work?
    > If one thinks that memes are beliefs, then, one has to decide whether
    > any belief can be true. (Personally, I view all beliefs as false, but,
    > that's me.)
    > In other words, I don't think truth is a necessary quality for a meme to
    > have, in any of its infestations.
    > Truth may indeed be material in some aspects of some informational
    > propagation- in science, in particular, since falsehoods are only
    > historical curiosities in science- but, in other realms, falsehood is a
    > necessary and sufficient condition for continuance, as in any theistic
    > religion.
    > Now, being strict, there is no such thing as a false fact, and thus no
    > need for true facts.

    Not sure about that Wade.

    Facts are a representation of what we know now. For example at school for O
    and A level (For the US this is 16 and 18 Years of age exams) I was taught
    the Bohr model of atomic theory, only to be told at Polytechnic that this
    was wrong, and the energy fields theory was the correct one.

    Another example could be using Newton as the basis for calculations on say a
    crash between two vehicles. It is a fact that Newton so far has proved wrong
    according to Einstein, and that it is an approximation of Einstein. Just
    that Einstein is too difficult to use. The facts can be what is useful at
    the time.
    > - - Wade



    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 : Mon Apr 22 2002 - 23:25:52 BST