Re: Logic

From: Scott Chase (ecphoric@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Aug 01 2001 - 00:41:39 BST

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Nurture Assumption: was- Memetic vulnerability"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA22564 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 1 Aug 2001 00:44:31 +0100
    X-Originating-IP: [209.240.220.143]
    From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: Logic
    Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 19:41:39 -0400
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <F305gTIFprhMOgRGkQ60000643f@hotmail.com>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jul 2001 23:41:39.0660 (UTC) FILETIME=[585630C0:01C11A1A]
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    >From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
    >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    >To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    >Subject: Re: Logic
    >Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:53:53 +0200
    >
    >Hi Dace,
    >
    >----- Original Message -----
    >From: Dace <edace@earthlink.net
    > > Mechanism is far more compatible with creationism than evolution. The
    >point
    > > of evolution is that the species are not molded externally. Their forms
    > > arise from within, over time. Darwin's genius was to salvage the
    >Creator
    >by
    > > naturalizing him. Though God is blinded (and thus needs a lot longer to
    > > create the forms of life) he still has two hands to work with-- the
    >right
    > > hand of natural selection and the left hand of material spontaneity
    >(i.e.
    > > random, genetic mutation). Like many powerful memes, God doesn't go
    >easily.
    > > Darwinism is basically God in drag. Dress him up like Mother Nature and
    > > then pretend we've gotten rid of him. As long as we accept external
    > > creation-- whether supernatural or natural-- as opposed to
    >self-creation,
    > > we're still in the thrall of Authority.
    >
    ><< Very interesting point this !!
    >Our forms arise from within, as in Bergsons ' le moi profond ', as the ' le
    >Úlan vital ', as the " sentiment interieur ", as the " need/ urge by
    >Lamarck
    >!?
    >If so, I am all ears !!!
    >In a way you dismiss the concept of Darwin because it acts as an outside
    >creation- force !? Ok, very well put.
    >Self- creation would than be the result of memes, the result of our
    >sensible
    >behavior !? I am still listening !!
    >Please eleborate this, in detail, further.
    >I am very interested in what you have to say about this.
    >Maybe we can help eachother,....
    >
    > > When our hominid ancestors developed a method of scavenging for meat in
    >the
    > > hottest part of the day (after most animals have retreated to the shade)
    > > they soon began developing sweat glands and losing their hair. The
    > > phylogenetic shift occurred in tandem with the behavioral shift. This
    >is
    > > the norm, and it suggests that our own actions help determine our
    >evolution.
    > > We shape ourselves.
    >
    ><< Yes, I have heard the same argument not so long ago.
    >Geological, Natural evolution is a driving force behind the way Nature
    >makes natural selection possible, and the second form of evolution would
    >be the flexible way in which we adapt to those changes.
    >In return we shape lineages and niches for geological changes to occur and
    >in that sense we create a world for ourselves.
    >
    >If we'd had to wait around for a couple million years
    > > for a random mutation to give us the necessary glands under our skin,
    >we'd
    > > still be waiting. Since we can't pass on acquired characteristics
    >directly
    > > to our offspring, there must be a kind of nonmaterial, species memory
    >which
    > > evolves in accord with the shifting behavior of individual organisms.
    >
    ><< That kind of " nonmaterial, species " bounded memory, would that be
    >the memepool !? How do you see the way by which we can dive into it,
    >that is, how do we attract info from it !?
    >I ' ve got an idea about that, but I like to hear yours first, if you don
    >'t
    >mind !!
    >No hidden agenda, though !!
    >
    >
    Ummm..., if memory serves me right you probably might know what Dace is
    hinting at with the non-material memory. Or would you noet? Think resonance
    and psychic pets.

    I would humbly cordon off Dawkinsian memes (and Teilhardian/Huxleyian
    noogenetics) from such notions, though mnemically inclined as they are.

    _________________________________________________________________
    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

    ===============================================================
    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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 01 2001 - 00:48:41 BST