Re: RE[2]: virus: Hosts

Vicki Rosenzweig (
Mon, 14 Oct 96 16:18:00 PDT

Unless I completely misunderstand the theory, being provably
true (whatever that means) does not disqualify something from
being a meme. Also, while (for example) Euclidean geometry
may be true in the sense of being repeatable--given the axioms,
the theorems follow--the key meme here may be "mathematics
is important." Why, after all, do I remember that "e to the i pi plus
one equals zero," when I haven't found a use for it in at least a
decade? (Perhaps because of the story that some people have,
oddly IMHO, seen that as evidence that there is a deity.)

People do not hold the belief "A is true and false at the same time"
or "A is true and B is true and it is impossible for both A and B to
be true simultaneously," but they do hold beliefs that conflict with
each other. They do so by not thinking about them at the same time.

From: owner-virus
To: virus
Cc: KMO prime
Subject: Re: RE[2]: virus: Hosts
Date: Sunday, October 13, 1996 11:15PM

KMO <> wrote :-

>Human brains seem quite adroit at sustaining contradictory beliefs.

There is a really *big* assumption here : the observer is calling the
shots as to what memes are antithetical. The host *never* considers his
memes to be contradictory, I believe that's a psychological
impossibility assuming the person isn't clinically schizophrenic or
otherwise mentally ill. If I accept the definition of the set of
integers, then it's impossible for me to *believe* that 2 + 2 = 5. In
the case of scientists harbouring the "God meme" it's not that cut and
dried : a Genetic Engineer is not necessarily hosting contradictory
beliefs is he teaches Bible classes. He believes that God made the
molecules that make up DNA, so there's no contradiction. An atheist
doesn't see it that way, so if he is the observer, then he considers the
Genetic Engineer to be "double-thinking" to borrow an Orwellian concept.
This might come as a shock to some, but the theists believe that
atheists practice "double-thinking" when we acknowledge the Universe but
not God.


KMO <> also wrote :-

>Some memes facilitate the propagation of some memes and hinder the
propagation of
>others, i.e. there seems to be some memetic mechanisms which give rise to
>compatibility/incompatibility relationships between memes, but I have no
idea what
>those mechanisms are.

We may never know but it my belief that education would ultimately lead
to the acceptance of secular memes and the resulting rejection of
religious memes as a trend over time. The fact that atheist clubs tend
to be formed in academic environments is evidence of this. Mathematics
and the Sciences are *not* memes because they can be shown to be "true"
by way of independent repeatability. Since young minds are mental
sponges, equipping them with analytical academic tools should prepare
them to deal with exposure to religious memes. It pains me to see young
children being pounded with religious mush, but we have to accept that
it's part of the "God meme" survival strategy. This can be combated with
education but we need to recognize we're substituting one meme for
another by choosing to give them an alternative "no God meme", at least
initially. Is it arrogant to want to make people think for themselves?
Does anyone?

* *
* Hakeeb A. Nandalal *
* *
* *