Re: Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science

From: Trupeljak Ozren (
Date: Sun Apr 22 2001 - 19:26:19 BST

  • Next message: Trupeljak Ozren: "Re: The Status of Memetics as a Science"

    Received: by id TAA22557 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 19:29:37 +0100
    Message-ID: <>
    Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
    From: Trupeljak Ozren <>
    Subject: Re: Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science
    In-Reply-To: <[]>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Precedence: bulk

     A clarification:

    --- "Wade T.Smith" <> wrote:
    > Hi Trupeljak Ozren -
    > > [science and religion] seem to be based on a set of rules of
    > >perception that can not be proved within that set,
    > There are rules of perception?

    Laws, limits, implicit assumptions; all of these. Some are geneticaly
    predetermined ( for example, olfactory sensory data has much bigger
    impact on our fight/flight, love and eating perceptions then any
    other), some are culturaly determined, and these are formed very much
    by the presence/absence of religious or scientific upbringing.
    On another thread to the above question: remember those pictures in
    which you can see one shape, or its complement, but not both? This is
    one example of a rule of perception (arguably, based on our hardware).

    > Science is, at root and at core, the aggregation of facts, and every
    > fact
    > is backed up by the entire universe. Religions are all cultural
    > artifacts
    > held, by rules of interaction, not perception, in universal limbo.

    Err...I always though science was a set of rules for finding the truth
    about the universe in a consistent and replicate-able manner.
    Aggregations of facts are usualy called knowledges. The difference lies
    in that one is a "machine" for churning out thruths, while the other
    *may* be a collection of truths.
    There is a reason why religious people don't believe in the truth of
    scientific "facts"; and it is because they don't *perceive* them as
    correspondences with real Universe. To them, they are fabrications of
    deluded minds, same as to us their logical constructs seem based on
    thin air and good wishes.
    In that sense, I would argue that both science and religion are
    strustures whose primary function lies in defining our perceptions of
    the Universe; since the primary axioms are so different, we rarely have
    both perception-sets fully active in the same person.
    And as for religion being a cultural artifact, what, science is not?!
    Science exists without, and separate, from culture?! How can that be?

    > None of us actually perceive gods, but, some of us cannot say call
    > the
    > emperor naked....
    > - Wade
    Hm. Most of the Christians living around me would vehemently disagree
    about not being able to actually perceive God(s). Who am I to claim
    knowledge of what they perceive?

    Do You Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices

    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 : Sun Apr 22 2001 - 19:32:54 BST