That's not what I said. The point--for me--is whether
we're using memes consistently as an explanation of
what people do. *If* we want to do that, then we must
remember that *all* concepts are memes, not just the
ones we don't like. The issue of whether we're acting
consciously or mindlessly is very, very important, but
that's all the more reason not to be confused about
how memetics can help.
>I for one would argue that one *cannot* be a mindless host of "reason" --
>the very nature of the beast gives one a mind! (although, of course, one
>could argue that, albeit pointlessly, that reason itself is just another
>virus...)
Rationality is most certainly a meme-complex. Why is
saying that pointless? I think it depends on the point
you want to make. If you want to be clear about all
this, you have to accept that, from a memetic point of
view, to argue for rationality is to be a virus carrier,
just exactly as if you were arguing for Christianity.
We can discuss which memes are symbiotic and which
parasitic, but that's a separate issue, and, I think,
ultimately a matter of opinion.
>But like I said earlier... the best argument I can think of to establish
>the fact that humans have freewill is the arguement from creativity. I
>simply don't think that a robot (e.g. a being without freewill) -- no
>matter how well programmed -- could display the creativity necessary to,
>say, invent calculus.
I don't get into the freewill vs determinism debate
much these days. It seems always to get seriously
bogged down sooner or later. (And I prefer freedom!)
>My point, then, is that *even* *if* some people are just mindless carriers
>of a religion meme-complex, that doesn't stop them from actively hosting
>other, more valuable, things -- which they consciously control.
I wouldn't disagree with the general thrust of this
at all.
-- Robin