Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Because it's genuinely a matter of opinion, it is
> absolutely impossible to prove either that we have
> or that we lack freewill.
As if that doesn't falisify itself! If it is a matter of opinion, then
each person gets to decide for themselves. But if each person gets to
decide for themselves, then they *must* possess free-will (other-wise they
couldn't choose), and hense humans possess free-will!
To sum it up, I'll quote a little .tag I found a while back...
"Of course I believe in free will. Do we have a choice?"
-- Isaac Bashevis Singer.
I find it interesting that one gets into the liars paradox while thinking
about the above line -- if it's true, then it's false, but if it's it's
false it's true... perhaps it's not so safe to conclude that we have
free-will from this. (although if you're willing to say that rationality
is *part* of our free-will, and does not take away from it, then this
arguement proves that humans have free-will)
> 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.
Do you have a better one on hand? I'm making a collection, and am very
interested in finding more, better, definitions.
> 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.
I think we actually *do* agree -- although we phrase it different ways. I
certainly found nothing in your argument that I'm not willing to go along
with.
To provide a concrete example of a non-meme set of ideas, I offer Euclid's
_Elements_. This book is an all time classic of geometry, but you won't
find yourself possessed with the urge to spread it after reading it. The
books are very useful, but nothing in them induces a person to spread the
word. (and by the way, their content is much easier accessed in any modern
day algebra and geometry textbook)
> >(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.
Ain't that the truth! Seriously, though, I've certainly found in my own
experience that Christianity is better modelled by memetics than most other
things, certainly better than, say, the free-thought movement. As to
"thinking" Christians, sure there are many. They just *don't* think about
Christianity. Any Christian who DOES either becomes a theology major --
and Christian theology nowadays is *completely* different from the
attitudes that lay-Christians tout -- or they stop being a Christian.
(the difference between what Christian scholars say and what the general
lay-Christian believes continues to amaze me!)
ERiC