Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA23293 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:52:48 +0100 Message-ID: <email@example.com> Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 16:49:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Trupeljak Ozren <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: The Status of Memetics as a Science To: email@example.com In-Reply-To: <F232pfTYSl1q4gtopWd0000fdbe@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
--- Scott Chase <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >From: Trupeljak Ozren <email@example.com>
> >Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >To: email@example.com
> >Subject: Re: The Status of Memetics as a Science
> >Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
> >If we start with the assumption that memes have been with us for
> >time; that they follow the principles of evolutionary selection;
> >they are the reason behind our physical dominance on this planet;
> >it would follow that releasing the knowledge about the specific
> >mechanisms of their existence (knowledge of meme-engineering) could
> >only lead to a greater diversity; and thus stronger, more robust
> >"meme-system" (eco-system of the memes) for the whole of their
> Humans are physically dominant on this planet? Tell that to the
> insects and
> other arthropods. For every arrogant human wearing anhtropocentric
> there are those crafty little microbes waiting in the shadows looking
> for an
> opportune time to pounce. Simplicity reigns.
They are still unable to unleash enough energy to move our planet out
of the orbit, which we are (I would argue that one can measure
dominance over the physical world in simple terms of exactly how much
energy can you unleash); the other point being that neither microbes
nor insects have yet been able to stop us from doing anything that we
as a species wanted to do. They still exist as a possible threat to our
> >Why do I believe that they (memes) are the reason behind our
> >By definition, all transmited knowledge exhibits memetic behavior;
> >our physical dominance is the result of our knowledge of theory and
> >application for laws of nature. The ideas standing behind the rise
> >scientific thought could very easily be perceived as being memes.
> So "memes" have pushed us up the great ladder?
Well, I haven't said that, but you might consider that idea, too. I was
talking that ideas behind scientific method showed meme-like behavior.
> >Why would the release of knowledge of "meme-engineering" lead to
> >greater diversity of existant memes? Well, from the simple fact that
> >you would have many more nodes of replication that would mutate
> >on purpose, not just by accident or "flashes of inspiration", and
> >far more knowledge of what the results might be.
> >Why would this greater diversity of memes bring any good to us,
> >humanity? Well, here I can only go by analogy with biology, in which
> >the most complex systems exhibit surprising capabilities of survival
> >and adaptation.
> Ever hear of antibiotic resistance? The simpleton microbes are
> putting up a
> good fight.
Exactly. We are showering them with huge quantities of toxic
substances, and are accelerating their evolution (in the sphere of
immunity to antibiotics) very very much. But at the same time; it seems
as if we are still one step ahead of them, and will be as long as our
computational capabilities exceed the requirements needed to find new
versions of antibiotics. Without the complexity of todays computers, we
would be in big trouble very fast. :)
> >In a way, by being exposed to more, and better crafted,
> >memes, we can raise the immunity to truly virulent ones just by
> >constant exposure. Fanaticism of any kind might become a rather
> >and isolated phenomenon, unlike today...that might be good. :)
> >again, I might be discovering warm water. But I was provoked by the
> >discussion on ethics of releasing the knowledge of how the human
> >is manipulated to the general public. If we extoll the principles of
> >evoultion to be the elegant truth behind our existence, why should
> >not accept them as our ethical system, too?
> Hume's "is versus ought" distinction or Moore's naturalistic fallacy
I am not knowledgable of these; can you elaborate?
There are very few man - and they are exceptions - who are able to think and feel beyond the present moment.
Carl von Clausewitz
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 : Mon Apr 23 2001 - 00:56:05 BST