On Jun 30, 4:23 pm, grimeandreason <[email protected]> wrote: > You are working upon a false definition of meme. No one actually > believes that meme X is identical in any two people. Quite the > opposite; it explains subjectivity.
I'm not - i'm just showing how asinine it all is. The point is that there is no such thing as a meme beyond what we already understand by ideas. We already had Kant to explain subjectivity, we son't need a naturalist to help-out. > > Please read the thesis and critique it's points, I will gladly debate > it with you. You are exactly right, there is no difference between a > meme and an idea. Its a concept of blurred boundaries and distinction > precisely because it is the source of subjectivity. This being the case, we can simply do without memetics. > Memes are > processed by unique meme-machines, resulting in unique physiological > structures of memes which at a conscious level means different things > to different people. Now you are jsut talking bullshit. There is no such thing as a'unique physiological structure for memes. Memetics attempts to place ideals in the realm of the material, when we know that already. The point is no one was ever able to understand an idea by looking at grey matter. There is nothing of use here. > > How about this argument from my thesis, that evolution is the only > process that we know of that is capable of going against entropy, > creating complexity from simplicity, from simple axioms. You mistake 'evolution' as a cause. It is nothing of the sort; it is an effect. Evolution has no capabilities, it is not a force that creates. Things change, successful things are preserved and the RESULT of this is evolution. Right here we have hinted at the chief problem with reductionism in its most Platonic form. You accept > this with genetic evolution, yet the idea that genetic evolution is > responsible for the exponential evolution of culture is absurd... > genetics is the realm of instinct and sub-conscious action. That is > what I mean when I say memetic evolution provides us with our > conscious selves. The exponential growth comes from horizontal > transference as well as the standard hereditory, together with the > ability to transmit from one to many and over vast distances of time. But memetics says nothing about, and cannot account for WHY 'memes' survive, only that they can. In practice people make conscious choices for the preservation of ideas, and these are the ideas which are important. They are existentially important. There is nothing within memetics which can hint at or predict the reasons. And just like evolutionary theory has no predictive power, so too memetics is bland materialist , clever sounding but ultimately useless bullshit. > > Who are you? You might describe your appearance (genetic) or you > might describe what you do, what you like etc which is memetic. It > makes perfect sense that replicable information, as passing from host > to host, will not stay unaltered as it builds upon what has come > before. That sentance perfectly describes both genetics and memetics. So what? > > In my thesis I provide simple axioms that together explain everything > humanities; complexity from simplicitly. I would appreciate it if > your critique at least tried to recognise it as such instead of > throwing out generalisations and arguments of semantics. Your > critique thus far is in utter ignorance of all my arguments, that the > process involves complexity theory, chaos theory and the like. As > such, they are simply offensively off-base. You have nothing to offer. Give an example of how and why looking at non genetic inheritance is useful! Give a practical example. To be honest we've had this for years - naively with Dawkins, and with a little more engagement with Ben Cullen (who sadly died too young), but Dawkins has really done nothing of any use in the last 30 years with this stuff and Cullen only produced a dull and lifeless archaeology which tended to reduce humans to dupes of materialist forces. I tend towards free-will as illusion and an a determinist, but the complexities of human society cannot be 'explained' by anything as facile as a 'meme' for which there is no direct materialistic corollary such as a gene upon which it is modelled. You might as well re-introduce Darwin's gemmules. > > Try reading it first. Then perhaps your thoughts would be relevant. > > On 30 June, 11:44, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 29, 11:35 pm, grimeandreason <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Try reading the thesis first. You mistake the medium for the content. > > > > Memetic evolution is the basis of our conscious selves, the reason for > > > civilisation. > > > Complete rubbish. Memetics tells you the mechanism only. To understand > > human history you need to engage with the particularities and cultural > > logic coded in the 'meme'. The main problem with that is there is no > > identifiable material component that is equivalent to a meme. > > Basically there is nothing different between what you call a meme and > > normal people for centuries have called an Idea. Ideas change each > > time they are encountered by each new person. This is what meme- > > believers call mutation. Its what normal people call interpretation. > > > > Plus, you can say a hell of a lot, indeed everything there is to say, > > > about the Mona Lisa if you speak of all the memes that contributed to > > > its creation, both the objective and the expression of the subjective > > > (language consists of memes too...) > > > Name one single identifiable meme and its materialist corollary that > > is associated with the Mona Lisa! > > The fact is there is no such things as memes, they are nothing more > > than a historically situated article of faith by evolutionary > > psychology and its associated pseudo-sciences. > > There are no memes. Prove otherwise! > > > > On 29 June, 21:05, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The basic problem with memes as history is that it is like trying to > > > > understand the building, its uses and the people in it from the type > > > > of brick it is constructed with. You cannot say anything meaningful > > > > about the Mona Lisa from a chemical analysis of the paint. > > > > > On Jun 22, 2:24 pm, grimeandreason <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I have hi hopes for you lot since I have found that the more > > > > > contemporary the thinking, the more likely they are to get my idea so > > > > > here goes... > > > > > > Its more than just history, its identity, the self, everything > > > > > humanities. Its universal, it comes down to simple axioms and is > > > > > based on mere physical laws like cause and effect. > > > > > > I'd really appreciate feedback. A knowledge of memetics means you're > > > > > halfway there as it is. If I show it to a historian, the cognitive > > > > > science baffles them, and if I show it to science minded people they > > > > > dont like committing to the big picture implications. > > > > > > Its > > > > > athttp://sites.google.com/site/grimeandreason/memetics/we-are-what-we-t... > > > > > or, because you can't comment there (though you can see the matrix in > > > > > the appendix which blogger couldn't handle), it's also on my > > > > > blog,www.grimeandreason.blogspot.comunderthe20/6/2010entry. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Ben- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
