Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA04554 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:01:52 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c0ce6f$1dcc64c0$8308bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <email@example.com> Subject: Re: The Status of Memetics as a Science Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:36:05 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
Hi Trupeljak, you wrote,
> I agree with your views. If you look closely what I have written,
> though, you will notice that I never state that the engineered memes
> should in any way be classified as either "good" or "bad". I just
> wanted to imply that more constructed memes of any kind whatsoever,
> immediately increase diversity, and thus make the whole system work
> "better" in a sense that it is more robust, more resistant to pandemics
> of potentialy disastrous consequences
<< Yes, I understand, you mean that more constructed memes give in
a way some additional info/ knowledge by which you increase the system
its potency. We create more options to count in possible consequences !!
Ok, by me !!
> > You make of meme- engineering and the replication of mutated memes
> > a quantative factor where IMO it has to be a qualitative one.
If you believe in one of the first postulates, that memes evolved, then
> greater quantity means greater quality, after a certain period of time.
<< Yes, but the only possible profit we have from war, stupidity and
vulgarity is the knowledge we assembled about these subjects.
By themselves they are useless. They are just memes- propagating- ma-
chines. But very strong ones, indeed !!
> As I said, whatever memetic structures survive the initial explosion of
> population, are "good" by the ethics of evolution.
<< But this is " a life just for the sake of it " statement !!
There is no purpose, no meaning, no beginning and no end !
> > In a way, by not using the principles of evolution as our ethical
> > system, you deny people their birthrights, whatever they may be
and whatever kind of behavior they include !!
In a way, yes. It is a very general statement, though.
<< A general statement !? Denying someone 's genetical/ memetical/ cultu-
ral/... birthrights is IMO perverse. Giving someone the right(s) to explore
the possibilites of those birthrights in their full extent, that is humain
> Well, one could also go all the way out with natural selection and just
> give people the right to carry guns, and the right to duel. :)
<< Yes, and why not, if like you write rightly, if someone is raised as a
believer, than everything that you will do or will perceive in whatever way
is colored by that belief. And IMO that counts also for the genetical and
memetical side of the coin. And one of the reasons why children and
grown ups in the USA shoot eachother is part of such a believe.
It supposes that general public * is * interested in solving the
problems. It doesn 't seem that way to me; but then again, US is
<< Not that different of Europe if we look at this !
Problem solving is Ok, but not in their time, and most of all, if it costs
nothing, be my guest !!
Again, the contradiction between what the public wants and in what the
public is interested comes to mind. ( See my post to Vincent)
> What do you mean, what kind of ethical problems? Just make the
> knowledge widely available, and whoever chooses to use it is free to do
> just that, and whoever doesn't, well tough luck...
<< I don 't know what about you, but IMO people will never use tech-
nology, on a voluntary basis, to solve theirs or to solve worldwide
If Bush says no to the environmental quotas raised on the last environmen-
tal summit, why should we bother !?
IMO people will never choose to use the technology free to solve problems,
and on the other hand, forcing them will collide with ethical notion like
having a free will.
Though luck if you don 't !? No way, the equality- principle states it very
clear, noone should be left out. Making the knowledge widely avaible is
not enough. You have to come up with underlying proposals and agree-
ments so that everyone can get access to the knowledge.
Saying that the memetics- concept is avaible on the Net is not enough,
you have to show people where to find it and if necessary to give a com-
puter to find it and show them how such a stupid things works and tell
them what the importance is of memetics and advertise the thing,... that
kind of stuff.
> > IMO, you have to deal with the following,
> > If you want a certain stability in your society you can accomplish
> > that in two ways,
> > 1) by force and you will have no problem with ethics whatsoever, or
> > 2) by linking principles of evolution, genetic and memetic, to our
> > ethical system.
You lost me there. I don't see why you would have only these two
<< I mean by this that if you want some stability in your society that you
have two choises, you will use a or some ethical system or not !
There is no inbetween. There is no " well we use ethics if that.. " and we
" will not use ethics if this ". You use it or not!
( I am, because we are) just another ethical concept
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 Apr 26 2001 - 17:09:19 BST