On Jul 3, 11:35 am, grimeandreason <[email protected]> wrote: > I utterly disagree. Your argument are just as relative to genes > (which cannot be defined as specific units) since the relationship > between form and function is not based upon one-to-one but one-to-many > and many-to-one (as they are with memes). Give me your email and i'll > send you that paper and chapter from Marion Blute. I think she nails > it. She also answered my question as to whether the terminology of > memetics inspires unconstructive reactions. > > Look, meme is just the terminology I use to conceptualise cultural > evolution. > > As for the rich and famous bollocks you could not be farther from the > truth!!! I really couldnt give a rats ass if I die unknown, I've > already got everything I need in the contentment I have found. This > is simply a hobby.
I didn't make those remarks > > Im really not obsessed by memes. Its just the terminology through > which I was introduced to the concept of cultural evolution. That we > (body and mind) are the result of two co-evolutionary process is not > trivial, it's fundamental. But this all points to what I am saying. It is nothing more than terminology. You are trying to dress history in the garb of materialism. In this you are totally the same as Marx. That you both have different teleological conclusions speaks volumes about the paucity of the methodology. > > As for trying to pin down a theory, why the hell not? In mathematics > as well as reality, complexity theory has shown that nature produces > complexity from recurring simplicity. Personally I believe that > seeing human history and civilisation as anything other than that > brings about all sorts of philosophical problems. This sort of psycho-history is okay for sci-fi books, but as it is almost impossible by scientific method to predict the next second of a persons actions how much more facile is it to retro-dict the next day's news? > > Lets not get personal shall we? > > On 3 July, 00:58, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > You are starting to remind me of a fundamentalist. All you have to do > > is read the bible and all will be revealed. > > > A meme has no material corollary. Memes are everything, which means > > they are nothing. What is a meme? It might be the shape of a big toe > > on a statue, or the Declaration of Independence; it could be a smiley > > face :) or the way a person laces his shoes; it might be capitalism > > itself or a tiny part of the mechanism of trade; an emotional state; a > > word; a book; a bottle top design. There is no standard means of > > transmission, no standard means of mutation. > > Al emetics says is that things that persist, will persist. Big Deal! > > It is completely useless as an idea. > > > On Jul 2, 10:00 pm, grimeandreason <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > there is only a pure chance kind of evolution. > > > > A professor at Toronto has given me a proof copy of a chapter of a > > > book being published by Cambridge University Press. Her name is > > > Marion Blute. > > > > In it, she conclusively shows that the definition of meme is > > > absolutely in no way more problematic than the attempts at defining > > > 'gene' and can therefore not be dismissed a priori. She herself > > > doesn't use the phrase, instead talking of cultural transmission > > > which, funnily enough, isn't instinctively shunned by people that > > > instinctively shun it. > > > > nominal, dont knock it till you read it. My conclusions also revolve > > > around an expanding knowledge base as the basis for our cultural > > > identities. > > > > On 2 July, 17:00, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > memes.... pseudo science.....ideas....thoughts.....they CANNOT > > > > REGENERATE THEMSELVES (EMPHASIS ON THE THEMSELVES)....hence, they > > > > CANNOT EVOLVE.....look elsewhere for your answer... me, I like > > > > nominalism.... words , they change their meaning or just become new > > > > ones as the "Knowledge Base" of the people who use them expands (or > > > > diminishes)....but it's all haphazard..... not "evolutionary"... > > > > well , maybe evolutionary but in the "pure chance" sort of way... > > > > > On Jun 22, 9:24 am, 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 -- 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.
