Grants theory of everything

From: Steve Drew (
Date: Thu Jan 24 2002 - 20:26:14 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: sex and the single meme"

    Received: by id UAA23497 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 20:30:32 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Steve Drew" <>
    Subject: Grants theory of everything
    Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 20:26:14 +0000
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jan 2002 20:26:15.0139 (UTC) FILETIME=[5F180330:01C1A515]
    Precedence: bulk

    Philip wrote

    About the the freedom we have in chosen memes we like: you should not
    forget that memes shape who we are. Ideas and ideologies we adopt are in
    resonance with memes we already adopted. Memes code the brain, and in a
    way the metaphore memes selecting memes is not so bad.
    I think the actual freedom one has in chosing between one meme or
    another is not that big. Emotions play a crucial role in the selection
    process but
    emotions in turn are steered by thoughts, ideas, notions, opinions each
    which is memetic also.


    I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle of a
    abstract pure free will and will imposed by already acquired memes. An
    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
    also a
    function of the environment (other humans) it makes it even more
    I don't know how this unpredictability extends to average behavior


    and Joe wrote

    It is a matter of creative co-evolution; our prior memes strongly
    influence but do not absolutely dictate those we will subsequently
    accept, and our choices constrain but do not absolutely delineate the
    future meme to which we may choose to be open (or not).  Freedom is not
    absolute, but neither is it absent.

    Thanks, this is the point i was trying (not very well perhaps) to make. I
    don't (can"t?) subscribe to the view that we are automata pre programmed to
    react. That is why i said that we should be looking at some form of
    continuum between the two. This means that, although i accept that we are
    influenced by genetic (eg, the desire to mate) and memetics (choosing the
    mate), i believe (?) thta we are more than just the product of the two, and
    this is where my interest lies.

    I've looked at the quantum probabilities arguments for freedom before, but
    have not been able to get past the problem of when probability is the order
    of the day at the particle level to the (apparent?) non probablilty such as
    Boyles law mentioned earlier. Ie the microcosm to the macrocosm

    Richard Feynman discussed the idea that in a closed sub atomic system, an
    ideal one, that it would not be possible to tell which was the direction in
    which the interaction took place. ie one could view two snapshot and not be
    able to tell whether it came from before or after the interaction. Yet we
    percieve before and aftre all the time. So i'm not too sure if comparing
    memetics, free will and QM is very fruitful ,as the physicist have their own
    problems which need solving.


    Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

    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 - 20:38:36 GMT