On Jul 2, 8:16 am, grimeandreason <[email protected]> wrote: > But there is so much more to it! Please just read it!
Tell me what you think is new. I've been reading this sort of stuff for decades. > > Evolution creates nothing? Dah!! Yes. Evolution is an effect of change; it is not a cause. Think about it! Evolution is the result of natural (and other types) of selection. We are the most complex machine known... > created because of evolution. Why should how complex civilisation by > from a form of evolution also? > > What other process can create complexity? Creation is a loaded word; borrowed from the religious; and colonised by science for replacement. > > No physiological basis for memetics? That to my mind equals duality. Yes - you are a dualist. You got that right! > We can't locate it in grey matter? No Wonder! Doesnt mean it aint > there. Where is it? > > Kant was wrong, there is no pure reason, merely people with greater > data-sets making better conclusions. I was talking about his reflections on the thing-in-itself and his assertion of subjectivity. I think you may have missed the point. The clue is in the title "CRITIQUE of pure reason". get it? > > Hell, you can read my thesis and replace meme with idea... its the > same thing! Memetics is merely the content of information exchange. > How does this not exist? Neither ideas nor memes exist as discrete physical entities. Attempts to reduce them to such a thing is Platonic nonsense. Intellectual History as rejected "unit ideas", Archaeology has rejected "CVT", and no self respecting materialist ought to touch this stuff with a barge-pole. memetics says absolutely nothing; contributes nothing. It talks about mechanism but fails to understand the culturally and historically situated conditions by which ideas or 'memes' are transmitted; without the cultural logic memetics is like trying to understand the reason for the car journey by talking about the grade of petrol. > > Please just read the paper. A theory explaining all of civilisation > from simple axioms at least deserves reading before you trot off > critiques formed in the early stages of this conceptual shift. I have asked you for one example - you have no example because you cannot, like evolutionry theory, its all about the mechanism and nothing to do with the substance, reason etc. You don't have a 'conceptual shift' - you have an old idea in which there is nothing new. If you really want me to trawl through the words; you will have to give me some hint that there is anything new or different here. All I see is the same old, same old. > > On 1 July, 16:33, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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.
