wow, clearly this aint the place for debate, just personal attacks and closed-mindedness.
On 3 July, 12:49, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > Also, if you go to the library, ask for any copy paste instruction, > because some of your links give a Page Not Found error. Come on, get > lost > > On 3 jul, 07:35, 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. > > > 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. > > > 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. > > > 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.
