Re: Knowledge, Memes and Sensory Perception

From: Pieter Bouwer (
Date: Thu Jan 10 2002 - 15:12:03 GMT

  • Next message: Grant Callaghan: "Re: playing at suicide"

    Received: by id PAA07805 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:20:28 GMT
    Message-ID: <01ec01c199e9$aa2ba020$>
    From: "Pieter Bouwer" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: Knowledge, Memes and Sensory Perception
    Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:12:03 +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 6.00.2600.0000
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
    Precedence: bulk

    Hi Wade

    > On 01/10/02 08:39, Pieter Bouwer said this-
    > >I am referring to a
    > >hypothetical case where somebody allegedly receives knowledge
    > >'intuitively'.
    > This sounds like a priori or mystical knowledge, and, as such,
    has been,
    > within most rational circles, discounted.
    > - Wade

    I agree, but the subject's response to this a priory or mystical
    knowledge is real. How would you interpret such behaviour? If
    someone alleges to have received such 'knowledge' even though
    rationally it has been discounted, I am not so much concerned
    about the scientific validity of mystical knowledge. For
    him/her it is real and he/she acts accordingly. The point I
    want to make is that the subject behaved as if he/she had
    received a communication. There was no communicator, but the
    behaviour looks like a meme. Is this possible?


    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 Jan 10 2002 - 16:27:39 GMT