Re: neccesity of mental memes

From: Steve Drew (
Date: Thu Jan 31 2002 - 23:28:31 GMT

  • Next message: Steve Drew: "Re: necessity of mental memes"

    Received: by id XAA05774 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:34:21 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Steve Drew" <>
    Subject: Re: neccesity of mental memes
    Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:28:31 +0000
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2002 23:28:32.0156 (UTC) FILETIME=[FEF49DC0:01C1AAAE]
    Precedence: bulk

    Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:40:28 -0800
    From: "Grant Callaghan" <>
    Subject: Re: neccesity of mental memes

    > >
    >Because we are using a natural, uniform and ubiquitous component of the
    >universe as our stick, not something arbitrary or rooted in
    >anthropomorphism.† It does not matter what you call the unit of
    >(since language is itself arbitrary and by mutual convention), so long
    >your peers understand it, and it fulfills the above requirements.† We
    >not assigning a value to the protom-radius, we are naming it; it will
    >remain the same length whatever we call it, and that takes the
    >arbitrariness out of the referent, even though linguistic signs
    >are, for the most part (excluding, say, onomatopoeic words),
    > >
    > >Steve
    > >

    Now we're talking the same language.


    I think you left my name attached to one of Joe Deeís posting Grant.

    Just because something we have decided is a fundamentak measurement of the
    universe that is suitable as a unit of measurement of the universe doesnot
    make it any different to a metallic rod. The metal rod will appear to an
    observer under the same conditions the same each time. How is that different
    from the the radius of a proton? And this radius is not absolutely defined
    that i am aware, due to the problem of the wave / particle duality (and if
    you include one of my old lecturers, he described it as an energy field), so
    what measurement are we on about. The truth of the matter as i see it, is
    that external reality exists [my assumption - it makes life easier for me :
    - ) ] but that our interpretation of it is not always up to scratch. I donít
    see that assigning a value to something as any different to nameing it.
    (Some one also mentioned a 9 dimensional universe - i got the impression
    they were working on 13, and that they did unfold but are not visible above
    the sub atomic?)

    I would appreciate some clarification,


    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

    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 31 2002 - 23:45:33 GMT