Re: Apoptosis

From: Steve Drew (srdrew_1@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Feb 09 2002 - 16:45:10 GMT

  • Next message: Philip Jonkers: "Meta-memes?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA02940 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 9 Feb 2002 16:50:47 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: [62.31.30.7]
    From: "Steve Drew" <srdrew_1@hotmail.com>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: Apoptosis
    Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 16:45:10 +0000
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <F41ipkTOOY2pK7fbZAt0001fdf3@hotmail.com>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2002 16:45:10.0595 (UTC) FILETIME=[236B3930:01C1B189]
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    >Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 19:13:49 -0800
    From: "Grant Callaghan" <grantc4@hotmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Apoptosis

    >The evidence for it
    lies in how what we believe influences what we see and what we call
    things
    influences how we remember them and react to the emotionally.† In other
    words, our memes do influence our perceptions and as we adopt new ones,
    our
    perceptions change.<

    Another thing to add to that last post about would be the concious level of
    reflection that a person employs when they encouter a new meme. This would
    range from someone thinking *thats seems like a good idea, iíll give it a
    try* through to dialect change by prolonged exposure to a version of the
    language other than your own. This would obviosly be a slow, unnoticed
    transformation. A more immediate one might be a persons behaviour in a crowd
    or mob.

    Now, is reflection a learned thing, or is there a biological basis as well.
    My guess is both. I canít really see how we could learn and adapt our
    behaviour during the developement of the human race without some form of
    reflection, even if it is at a very basic level. Another part of it must be
    through learning how to reflect. Lewis Wolpert in *The Unnatural Nature of
    Science* thinks that to do science properlyit is a learned behaviour, as
    common sense is counter intuitive to the proccess. (I think he over does the
    unnatural bit myself. I believe that if we can do something, it isnít
    unnatural). Aristotle thought that stones fell to the ground because that
    was there natural place in his scheme of things. A common sense view would
    be to agree - try chucking a rock in the air. Seeing the true explanation,
    the mutal attraction of two bodies due to gravitation, is more difficult -
    the Earth moves towards the rock (pull the other one).

    So as i see it, we have an internal memeplex of behaviours that act as a
    filter, with those memes that are closest to to your memeplex having a good
    chance of being adopted without too much thought, which i term no choice,as
    for me choice is an act rather than just acceptance. When we come to
    choice, there must be some level of reflection or reasoning, even if the
    logic behind it is immaterial (eg choosing between two cars because one of
    them is green and the other isnít, instead of on the basis of their running
    costs). Finally, you have choice based upon considered reflection. (Using
    the last example, choosing on the basis of running costs because you are
    short of cash).

    Any thoughts on this?

    Regards

    Steve

    _________________________________________________________________
    Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

    ===============================================================
    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)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 09 2002 - 16:59:58 GMT