Re: necessity of mental memes

From: Philip Jonkers (
Date: Thu Jan 24 2002 - 08:10:12 GMT

  • Next message: Philip Jonkers: "Re: Grant's theory of Everything"

    Received: by id HAA21903 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 07:17:40 GMT
    Message-ID: <014501c1a4ae$96506340$6621aace@oemcomputer>
    From: "Philip Jonkers" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: necessity of mental memes
    Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 23:10:12 -0900
    Organization: Prodigy Internet
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
    Precedence: bulk

    > >So you can look back and state with confidence that everything that
    > >happened including any memes you picked up were either caused or
    > >random. You can even say that the future is the same way. But it makes
    > >difference in the operation sense because you will always feel you have

    > this view reduced humans to conduits, totally bereft of any causal
    efficacy of their own whatsoever. And also, in contradiction to what you
    have previously asserted, choice and responsibility for the consequences of
    those choices are logically correlative. If we have no choices, then we own
    no responsibility for the consequences of our actions, for we could not have
    chosen another course.
    > I consider it patently absurd to assert that every flickering thought and
    every crystal pattern on every snowflake, every wind current and the
    topography of every grain of sand was written in the fabric of the universe
    one Planck instant after the Big Bang. Even the three-body problem is
    theoretically unsolveable in physics, due to the complex interrelations of
    feedback and feedforward between multiple components of a complex system.
    > But all this does not matter to the acolyte at the superdeterminist altar;
    they believe that they have no choice to believe as they do, and that should
    they change their belief, that they had no choice but to do that, also; thus
    they have locked themselves in a cognitive trap. But there is a
    counter-trap that even trumps that one, and that indeed is logically
    necessary for it to be proferred. And this is the irrefuteable point that
    no one can noncontradictorally argue for such a position as
    superdeterminism, for to do so presupposes an exercise of the verty free
    will which the contention denies. In other words, their arguments (or
    anything else they say) are not their own; they are marionettes on strings,
    mouthing syllables that likewise were inscribed in the very fabric of the
    Big Bang. This reduces their arguments to meanoinglessness, and
    irretrieveably removes even the status of argument from them, for if their
    contentions are indeed correct, they can not logically ev!
    > en be truly meant by their proponents..

    Good point Joe. I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle of a
    abstract pure
    free will and will imposed by already acquired memes. An unpredicatable
    may be the type of emotion or mood the host has at time of potential
    adoption. By the
    the complexity of the human body mood is untractable as it is but by being
    also a
    function of the environment (other humans) it makes it even more
    I don't know how this unpredictability extends to average behavior though.


    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 24 2002 - 08:01:22 GMT