Re: RE[2]: virus: Hosts

Lior Golgher (
Mon, 14 Oct 1996 22:43:45 -0700

Noctem wrote:
> The two previously posted responses to this question (including the
> one quoted above) seem to suggest that a genetic basis operates in meme
> selection. Do we have any hard evidence to support this, as opposed to
> cultural- or experiential-based selection?

Hakeeb A. Nandalal wrote:
> I'm starting to suspect that there's a statistical probability of someone being born with a mind that would
> find theism acceptable (the majority) while there's a lesser chance the person will gravitate towards
> atheism. We all agree on the MEME theory but we need to go further to look for that elusive "why"
> accept/reject this meme or that meme.

On a seperate message Hakeeb A. Nandalal wrote:
> I believe the answer lies in a mental "uncertainty" chip in our heads
> and there is a random element if we're "pro God meme" or "anti God
> meme". The probability however is not equal, there are more people with
> "pro God meme" mental chips than those with "anti God meme" mental
> chips. This we can tell from observation of our societies where theists
> out-number atheists by something like (say) 10 to 1. Has anyone ever
> done a study of the actual ratio for say a single State or the whole
> U.S.?
> There is no way to tell how someone would "believe" based on their
> academic record or their memetic environment - it all boils down to a
> random element.

We should pay more attention to the use of terms like "a genetic basis operating in meme selection", "a
statistical probability of someone being born with a mind that would find theism acceptable" and most-radical
"mental "uncertainty" chip in our heads". With no intention to insult anyone, such terms are no more than a
modern variation of age-old determinism. What's the difference between claiming you were chosen by God before
your birth [and\or a member of his chosen race], and claiming your brain is genetically programmed to favor
pro God meme?
Memetics and Darwin's original theory of natural selection complete each other, forming one consistable model
of evolution, powered by the blind chaotic engine of mutations. According to that model survival isn't random,
but rather chaotic. Which means that there are objective causes for our existence [objective causes but
subjective purposes], only they're utterly unmeasurable and unpredictable. There is no scientific need for
theories like that mental chip in our heads, no "black matter" or holes in the theory to be filled up by brains
born to prefer one religion upon another. On the same extent, Astronomy needs not Astrology to explain
astrophysical phenomenons, atleast not today. Determinism should be kept as an arbitrary religious perception,
with no scientific cloak around it.


PS: Sorry for the last posting, I've pressed the wrong button ;)
Never trust Saddam's red button cleaner... _