Re: neccesity of mental memes

From: Joe Dees (
Date: Fri Feb 01 2002 - 05:43:51 GMT

  • Next message: Joe Dees: "Re: ality"

    Received: by id FAA06438 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 05:49:35 GMT
    Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 21:43:51 -0800
    Message-Id: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain
    Content-Disposition: inline
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
    X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116)
    X-Originating-Ip: []
    From: "Joe Dees" <>
    Subject: Re: neccesity of mental memes
    Precedence: bulk

    ('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)

    > "Steve Drew" <> Re: neccesity of mental memesDate: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:28:31 +0000
    >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,
    Because in one case our measurement referent is artificial and arbitrarily chosen and by mutual convention (kinda like non-onomatopoeic words), and in the other case the measurement referent is natural and actual; the smallest uniform length we can discover in the universe (which as the added benefit that evey length would have to be in integral multiples of the measurement referent - no fractions or remainders could exist).
    >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)

    Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL! compares book price at 41 online stores.

    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 : Fri Feb 01 2002 - 05:58:08 GMT