Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.
I disagree. All idea's are NOT memes. To quote the literature,
A <I>meme</I> is a unit of information in a mind whose existence influences
events such that more copies of itself get created in other minds. --
Richard Brodie, _Virus of the Mind; the New Science of the Meme_
I can think of many many ideas which do NOT influence events to create more
of themselves -- indeed, I would say that most ideas fall outside the
framework of memetics. It's possibly to view almost anything through
memetic eyeglasses, but that's like viewing the world through purple
eyeglasses. Unique view point, certainly, but there are somethings that
you simply can't see! I would maintain that memetic eyeglasses make it
impossible to see that humans have freewill -- that is, freewill is like a
purple object to a person wearing purple sunglasses -- obscured.
What the memetic framework boils down to, in my opinion, is a simple
shifting of the intentional stance *from* (i.e. AWAY from) humans, and to
memes. Clearly, if I can establish that humans DO have freewill, at least
in creatin circumstances, then that goes quite a peice towards destroying
the memetic viewpoint in general. As a corollary, I would say that
anyplace where you can show that humans *necessairly* lack free-will would
be a memetic heaven!
(and that is why religions like Christianity, which restrict your freedom,
can be modelled so well by memetic theory)
ERiC