Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA00425 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:01:54 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745DE8@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: The Status of Memetics as a Science Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:58:02 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
Making the Earth move out of orbit?
You've been watching either 'The Day the Earth Caught Fire' or 'When Worlds
Collide'. Or maybe even Flash Gordon re-runs.
> From: Trupeljak Ozren
> Reply To: email@example.com
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 12:49 am
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: The Status of Memetics as a Science
> --- Scott Chase <email@example.com> wrote:
> > >From: Trupeljak Ozren <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > >Reply-To: email@example.com
> > >To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > >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
> > some
> > >time; that they follow the principles of evolutionary selection;
> > that
> > >they are the reason behind our physical dominance on this planet;
> > >THEN
> > >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
> > "living
> > >space".
> > >
> > Humans are physically dominant on this planet? Tell that to the
> > insects and
> > other arthropods. For every arrogant human wearing anhtropocentric
> > lenses
> > 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
> dominance, yes.
> > >
> > >Why do I believe that they (memes) are the reason behind our
> > dominance?
> > >By definition, all transmited knowledge exhibits memetic behavior;
> > and
> > >our physical dominance is the result of our knowledge of theory and
> > >application for laws of nature. The ideas standing behind the rise
> > of
> > >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
> > memes
> > >on purpose, not just by accident or "flashes of inspiration", and
> > with
> > >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
> > small
> > >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
> > mind
> > >is manipulated to the general public. If we extoll the principles of
> > >evoultion to be the elegant truth behind our existence, why should
> > we
> > >not accept them as our ethical system, too?
> > >
> > >
> > Hume's "is versus ought" distinction or Moore's naturalistic fallacy
> > perhaps?
> 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)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
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 : Wed Apr 25 2001 - 12:05:18 BST