>But to me, there are no memes outside the mind, nor need there be. And
>there is no mind outside the body, nor need there be.
I tend to agree. Some of the recent discussion here appears to be
stressing mechanisms whereby one mind transmits a meme to another (e.g.,
words being used to transmit ideas, but the memes only become active when
encountered by a mind....). The word is not the thing. The expression of
an idea is not the idea.
Now, as to what happens when one mind deals with a meme, that's an
excellent question....
>Either memes are part of the neural interface between perception and
>memory, in which case they are only malleable by the disassociative
>person, or they are part of the neural interface between memory and
>behavior, in which case they would be malleable by the 'enlightened'
>individual.
I don't necessarily see it as an "either/or" situation. Say I carry a meme
that has me attributing more importance to what a PhD says than to what a
non-PhD says, regarding, say, nutritional matters.
Example of the first instance: wouldn't that meme affect my perception of
statements made by each, and my consequent processing of these statements
regarding memory (I might not even pay attention to the statement made by
the non-PhD)?
Example of the second: If, despite my bias, I memorize statements by both
a PhD and a non-PhD, would I not be more likely to act according to what
the PhD said?
I would venture that it would be extremely difficult to realize that one
didn't even perceive something, no matter how dissociative one is.
As you said regarding neural theory as a basis to discard the second,
theories are theories.... To what extent does neural theory even attempt
to describe mechanisms responsible for behavior? (I don't know the answer
to this.)
lena
-
Lena Rotenberg
lenar@hermesnet.net