All you see is same old same old? You havent even looked at it. We clearly have different working definitions of memetics. All I mean, and all the theory requires, is that information is transmitted, mutated, built upon and transmitted again. That is all I mean by memetics. There, all utterly uncontroversial. Call it man-made environment, symbols, signs anything you like, other disciplines are happy to do so.
Your insistence in requiring examples shows we are thinking of two utterly different things. Memetics to us is abstract for a very good reason... because a meme is processed by uniques mind-states. You have an inert, nothing-in-and-of-itself meme and you have the subjective appropriation of the meme by a mind. Like a tree falling with nothing to hear it, the power of the meme is in the beholding. How am I a dualist? Its really simple. The human-made environment we inhabit is all I mean by memes. That our identity and personality develop in part through our cumulative journey through this environment is hardly controversial. That this experience is stored in the brain is again utterly uncontroversial. Therefore the effects of memes ARE physiologically defined within our brains. Anything OTHER than that is dualist. We cannot locate specific memories in the brain, yet we do not doubt they exist. The whole notion of unit is misleading. We are talking here of complex systems (complexity from simplicity, unpredictable etc) with literally millions of permutations and possibilities. The whole idea of memes as units is unneccesary. We are not talking simple chemistry here, as with genes. We are talking about the inter-relationship of the conscious and sub-conscious, of a complex system magnitudes greater than that of genetics and one that deals with the abstract. As I said, all that the theory requires is that information is transmitted, mutated, built upon and transmitted again. Add to this the utterly uncontroversial evolutionary axioms I present and it gives a very comprehensive theory from a ludicrously simple process. The model of history it produced is, to me, the most comprehensive i've seen. The notion of peoples identities being forged by those holding the power of memetic creation and transmission is a fundamental part of humanity, a common denominator that cuts across cultural devides by being based upon cognitive science. It covers a lot of ground... History as Heterohistoriography (my coinage), the progression from cognitive dissonance to cognitive dissident (my coinage), an explanation for the creation of the three core identities of (roughly) religion, state and commerce identified by Pierre Levy (which he had not been able to explain himself and liked very much), identifying the corrolate with moral and social progress that is communication technology.... all from simple axioms. It is also a collaborative project, with amendments and expansions as feedback comes in from academics (very positive thus far). I shall certainly use your feedback thus far to illustrate the minimum requirements for this theory to hold true and to offers different terminology to those who have apparantly made up there minds already about memetics (if you'd be so good as to fill me in on your credentials/qualifications etc?). On a personal note, I am obsessed with knowledge. I haven't come into this from an ideology, indeed my whole view of humanity has been forced to change as I've internalised and reinforced this idea. It has not only given me deep contentment but also a vastly increased empathy and emotion. Only recently have I noticed all the collaboration between western science and eastern philosophy but I believe the implications are converging. On Jul 2, 10:50 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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... > > ... > > read more »- 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.
