But everyone here basically does share a similar system of ethics. Even
with apparent disagreements like the one between Sodom and David McF. about
whether you should interfere with the actions of someone who has an
unscientific belief system, there's an agreement that such issues are open
for debate since they're not black or white. This is different from other
meme-pools where *walking away from the discussion* is popular.
>>Are you saying, Tim, that it is
>>just a coincidence that people into memetics also are interested in ESS's
>>and use that info to construct a system of ethics?
>Took me a while to figure out what an ESS was--evolutionary stable
strategy,
>right? You seem to be quite interested in them, this is true. But I
think
>you'll find you have the causality backwards, my friend. Most already
have
>a system of ethics, so it is no coincidence that after learning about
>evolutionary stratagies that they would employ them as another tool for
>defending their pre-existing ethical choices.
Can you show me a reasoned argument that suggests that in long term
interaction, it is better to take advantage of the other guy, based on
ESS's?
>In the 30's and 40s Communists, Facists, and Capitalist robber-barrons all
>used the "survival of the fittest" maxium to tout the superiority of their
>particular ideology. But that does not mean that any of those ideologies
>was derived from Darwin. Likewise, many of us employ memetics to defend
our
>ethics or morality in arguments here on this list. Yet this does not mean
>that our ethics are constructed from memetics.
Ethics are not constructed *from* memetics, but they can be part of this
meme-complex that includes memetics. I see meme-complexes as being like
animals or any other creature in which the whole can be extrapolated from a
part. I realize that this is a form of inductive reasoning and will lead to
over-generalizations, but...everything in nature forms habits of action and
meme-complexes are no exception. And, on a list like this, which you claim
is made up of people with different minds, we can test whether people who
are into memetics also believe certain other things.
>Don't let the smoke and mirrors cloud your vision. If you think everyone
>that understands memetics shares anything (other than an understanding of
>memetics) I suggest you commit yourself to reading the other threads on
this
>list for a time. We are seldom of one mind.
Maybe I'll participate in other threads. But, for some reason, when I watch
other arguments, I don't have the impulse to jump in, for the following
reason. There appear to be 2 kinds of arguments: One kind, the contents of
the argument is taken very seriously by at least one of the parties(the
"level 2" party). In another kind of argument, it is not the contents, but
the flow of the discussion that's more important. I often don't participate
in the first kind, because I usually agree with the "majority" here, and
the one on the minority end seems to have enough to deal with. And, I often
don't participate in the second kind, because there doesn't exist the kind
of tension that produces the stimulating mental concentration that leads to
different states of consciousness.
I wonder if there's a limit to the value of discourse.
>>Like I just said, when memetics gets accepted, certain kinds of ideas
about
>>those philosophical and religious questions also happen to get accepted.
>List them.
OK. Here are 10 ideas. And you and others can judge whether you agree with
them, (even if it isn't totally black or white).
1) It is best to have as many opinions as possible to select the best model
and those opinions should "compete" against each other using arguments
and/or experiments. And, the opinions you hold might not be the best, just
because they're yours--feedback from others is useful.
2)God (as imagined by what you imagine most Christians believe, not the
kind of "god of spontaneous order and complex systems" that neo-Darwinists
might believe) does not exist.
3)There can always be someone better than you in anything.
4)It is better to have a revolution by focusing on changing the structure
of the mind (cause) as opposed to changing the structure of society
(symptom).
5)Human immortality is conceivable and human cloning should be tried.
6)The scientific method, which is the best form of inquiry we have, doesn't
necessarily exclude shamanistic practices.
7)Language is an exosomatic organ.
8)Countries, corporations, and other large institutions aren't controlled
by one or a few individuals, but emerge spontaneously as a result of the
memetic environment.
9)The best type of political structure is one which allows the most
diversity with the least violence. And the way to create that structure is
to form a structure that exists not because it's so great but just because
it challenges other structures. This structure would be kind of like a "New
World Order", in the sense that there's a general agreement that we should
allow disagreement, unlike other "orders".
10) We should worship Prof. Tim as Great Guru or Prophet.:-)
Anyway, according to my theory, people into memetics would generally agree
with *all* of these ideas. And people into a Platonistic meme-complex
(characterized by unmovable truths) would not.
Why is it, as Eric Boyd mentioned, that the CoV website hasn't changed?
Maybe people here agree with it and don't yet have a better system.
>>We have to make a religion out of *something*. Religion is part of the
>>anatomy of the human psyche. Religion is unavoidable--you can't get rid
of
>>it, you can only replace one with another.
>My favorite way of looking at that thing that some have called Level Three
>(it's Stage 4 of the Greater Recursive Pattern in my lexicon, BTW) is
this:
>In the case of "X versus Y" the Level Two focuses on the "X" or the "Y".
>The Level Three, however, focuses their attention on the "versus"
You can, in your mind, simulate differerent models, but that doesn't mean
that at any given time, you do not have a definite model.
>I would hope so, everyones beliefs form a system of one sort or another.
>But I have never asked a room full of people to follow my particular
>beliefs. In fact, when asked, I advise just the opposite. What works for
>me would make most people miserable. The road I've walked is not one I
>would suggest that others take. I'm wired-up differently than you. My
>belief system should not be yours.
I don't ask that others follow my particular beliefs, either. But, don't
you have a model of the world and what people's beliefs are like and then,
based on that model, try to influence people's thoughts or ways of thinking
in such a way that will lead to different patterns of action of individuals
and society?
>(And having been offered the position of The Prophet or Great Guru in the
>past, I can say with some conviction that it is not a role I desire or
>aspire to. In fact, it is a good way to get me to leave a group.)
>> That's not how belief systems work. You have to give people
>>something new--solid bricks and cement with which to build a new belief
>>system.
>Once you're used to living behind walls it can be quite scary to imagine
>living in a land without any walls at all. Don't you find that's true,
>David?
Well, perhaps "bricks and cement" isn't the most cheerful imagery. But, how
do you live in a land without walls if our beliefs are part of a system?
>> You can't expect anyone's beliefs to change unless you give them a
new
>>system first.
>Methadone isn't the answer.
Maybe it isn't. But don't you find it the case that one thing replaces
another? For example, a set of parents might get replaced by a guru. Then a
guru might get replaced by a different guru or idea system. An idea system
might get replaced by another idea system, or some other mode of
thinking--it goes on ad infinitum. Or, do you find something different,
that you can take something away and not replace it with anything?
>> And, BTW, there are memes about marketing that are part of the
>>neo-Darwinian meme-complex. One is "Don't close the sale--just keep the
>>offer open." Another is "you can't control whether the customer says yes
or
>>no, but you can control whether you ask a 'yes or no' question. Do you
>>agree with these memes, Tim? According to my theory, you would.
>Another shot in the foot for your theory then. I am very wary of
marketing
>techniques in my old age.
You are moving from the specific to the universal when judging marketing
techniques. According to Darwinian marketing:
1)There might be a better product out there, so don't get so cocky about
advocating your current one--it should sell based on the intelligent
decisions from the info available at the time.
2)If you get away with cheating once, your strategy might not work
again--there might be defense mechanisms evolving for detecting cheating.
3)It's a numbers game--focus on making as many contacts as possible,
instead of trying to force people to buy. Evolution is a trial and error
process--you can't force an unfit animal, (or product, or idea) to survive.
The reason I bring this idea about marketing up, is that according to my
theory it is part of this meme-complex--this memetic creature--which I
believe exists not just in my own mind, but other peoples'. If it does,
then such ideas about marketing (and other things not yet discussed) would
be agreeable to others like you, who I think use a certain *kind* of model.
(C'mon, Tim, prove me wrong--show me that you're not a memebot subscribing
to a particular meme-complex.)
> >>Public media should not contain explicit or implied descriptions of
> >>sex acts...
> >> -- Kenneth Starr, 1987, `Sixty Minutes' interview with Dianne Sawyer.
> >>
>Now I would just love to forward it to everyone I know, but as of yet I
>haven't been able to confirm that it is an actual quote.
Why would you like to forward this quote? To build an opposition to it?
--David R.