Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA20832 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Thu, 29 Nov 2001 07:11:14 GMT Message-ID: <005d01c178a4$7b425940$13c1b3d1@teddace> From: "Dace" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> References: <001001c16c62$3552d3e0$3524f4d8@teddace> <0111211504020D.firstname.lastname@example.org> <004501c176f6$706febe0$8788b2d1@teddace> <email@example.com> Subject: Re: Debunking pseudoscience: Why horoscopes really work Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 23:07:14 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> > > If you are conscious of some event you can express it in words right?
> > What is this "you" that's conscious of events and can express it in
> > If there really is a "you" in there somehow, then why assume the human
> > "you" came from memes as opposed to the animal "you" that preceded you
> > evolutionarily?
> This *you* consists of the brain-machinery inside my head interacting with
> the world through sensory perception together with the execution of
> meme-programs from my (self-)meme database.
If brain-machinery has a self, why not the engine in your car? Does the
dishwasher have a self, the toaster, the telephone? Aren't all these
Once you define organisms as machines, then all machines must have
self-nature. Where do you draw the line between your brain and your vacuum
This is similar to the mistake Ray Recchia makes when he imagines that memes
can exist in the minds of animals. Once you locate memes in unreflective
organic activity, there's nowhere to draw the line between animals and
amoeba. The supposed division-- between learned activities and genetic
activities-- breaks down upon close examination. The problem is evolution.
Whatever is genetically programmed now had to be consciously learned when it
first evolved. Every function of the body had to be built up through
learning and imitation. Memetics turns out to be the basis of all living
forms, as innate to protozoans as primates. Not so different from cars
running around with their own self-nature.
> > I think what it shows is that the feral child tells us nothing about
> > nature. The child raised by wolves is a wolf in the body of a human.
> > when removed from its "family" and raised as a human, it remains an
> > What makes this research so significant is that it shows exactly the
> > of the beast we evolved from. It helps us imagine the organism that
> > two million years ago and looked remarkably like us but was absolutely,
> > positively *not* us.
> The feral child phenomenon tells us that if we are raised isolated from
> our cultural environment we do not obtain our typical human character.
> That is, unlike the roots for developing a human character humanity itself
> is not purely innate, it is something that needs to be nurtured and
Yes, indeed. However, as Kenneth pointed out, that we must open our eyes
doesn't mean vision arises from the retractile motion of the eyelid.
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 Nov 29 2001 - 07:17:21 GMT