RE: Cichlids & Memes

From: Lawrence DeBivort (
Date: Mon Sep 10 2001 - 12:59:08 BST

  • Next message: Derek Gatherer: "RE: FW: England humour"

    Received: by id PAA15897 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 15:13:09 +0100
    From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <>
    To: <>
    Subject: RE: Cichlids & Memes
    Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 07:59:08 -0400
    Message-ID: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Importance: Normal
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
    Precedence: bulk

    Greetings, Kenneth,

    > > And Sheldrake, Dace and others, including myself, are saying, ok he
    > > is ok, but not entirely right. And the contention is, and I agree is
    > > proof.
    > > But proving, convincing others would stay difficult because, if I may
    > > express myself in this way, you and others lack the memetic capacity
    > > to see things in a different light.>

    I don't think this is accurate, Kenneth. A couple of decades ago, I had some
    correspondence with Sheldrake. I had developed a theory, called the Global
    Interference Pattern (GIP), had given a couple of well-received talks on it,
    and was looking for parallel or complementary theories or experimental data.
    If anything, I was and am predisposed memetically to find something like
    this, but found MR to be too thin an argument and the science too shakey to
    use in my own explorations. Ted gave it an able, heroic and patient try and
    I -- as I think many others on this list -- would have welcomed his success.
    I do welcome and appreciate his substantial effort to help us understand the
    argument that is made for MR. If Ted can post the citation for the
    cross-word puzzle experiment he cites, I'll do my best to track it down and
    review it.

    The GIP notion, FYI, focuses on the near-perpetual physical transmission of
    information about events, but does not suggest any affect of that
    information on subsequent evolutionary development, other then that it might
    be decoded and read some day by an intelligent entity. The GIP notion is
    speculative and far more modest in its assertions than MR, but might have
    offered a supportive element for MR.

    Given the nature of memetics, I would also think that memeticists, if
    anyone, would be generally predisposed to MR-type thinking (e.g. due to the
    dissemination and latent survival of memes), if MR could be shown to be
    valid in any way.

    Best regards,

    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 Sep 10 2001 - 15:21:02 BST