Hi yourself
>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 don't think I fully agree with Richard's definition,
but I do agree with the bit that's relevant here,
which is that memes self-replicate.
>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.
Ah well, that's where we differ. Not that I say people
don't have freewill, because I don't. But I don't
think it's simply the case *either* that we have free-
will, or that we don't. And that's not just because
there are some constraints on us. It's because our
concepts simply aren't sophisticated enough to reflect
reality. Or not yet, anyway! But I think we can
cover it for present purposes by saying that whether
I am in charge, or the memes I'm presently propagating,
depends on where you're standing. From some points of
view, it is entirely correct to say that I have a
choice. From others, memetics provides a complete
explanation. It is wrong to see these as contradictory,
just as it is wrong to say that either an explanation
in terms of atoms, or one in terms of molecules, must
be true, and the other false. In fact, both are true.
The analogy's not perfect, because it looks like
something must be in charge, meaning that nothing else
can be, but I don't think "in charge" is actually that
well defined. It means something in terms of human
affairs, but not elsewhere--and not always in human
affairs either!
>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!
Because it's genuinely a matter of opinion, it is
absolutely impossible to prove either that we have
or that we lack freewill. (But I do believe that
it's generally *healthier* to think and act as if
we have it.)
>(and that is why religions like Christianity, which restrict your freedom,
>can be modelled so well by memetic theory)
It's just easier to see philosophies with which you're
not sympathetic as being relatively mindless. A
thinking Christian (I believe there are one or two)
would probably say the same sort of thing about you.
Reductive explanations have many uses, put-downs being
one of the most popular.
-- Robin