Reading your posts, it seems to me you have a high concept of yourself. That is usually a bad sign, if you allow me to say. And that is what leads you to say, for instance:
>... 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. Which is definitely absurd. To say your inspired view is more complex than genetics looks almost like delusion > 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. The I part of your notes, like this above is what shows you clearly, although I'm afraid in a way you do not see. When someone reads quote...indeed my whole view of humanity has been forced to change.. unquote, there is not much more to say Did you know that in this group we already had people affirming they were God? What is the difference in your case. I dont see it frankly I dont think you are obsessed by knowledge, instead I believe you want to be famous, rich, tall, and good looking. Forget it, I'm the chosen one. > > 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 > > ... > > mais » -- 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.
