Re: virus: memes, supernaturalisms, and memory (was"father" of "memetics")

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Fri Jul 26 2002 - 22:57:40 MDT


On 27 Jul 2002 at 0:30, Jkr438@aol.com wrote:

>
> [Jake1] From the memes-eye PoV this is sufficient to ensure at least some continuity and
> transmission. My actual belief in these things would just be a bonus, though not necessary.
>
>
> [Walter] If there's anything I've learned from you and the other 'ole timers is
> that veracity is not a "required" attribute of a successful meme.
>
> [Jake2] Its important to some people, and certain types of veracity on the whole can encourage
> more symbiotic strategies with hosts than not, but as you say its certainly not required. And on
> some level or another we have to learn to at least appreciate other meme strategies as to some
> extent this helps us understand ourselves better as human animals, and perhaps to even out-
> compete some of them for a fitness more favorable to hosts. Also, what seems patently
> ridiculous and false on one level, may in fact impart a certain veracity on another metaphorical
> level, and as striving memetic engineers we need to remain on the lookout for good strategies
> that co-opt these kinds of things when and where they work. What one person may see as an
> absurdity or an irrational supernaturalism on one level, may actually work as a good mnemonic
> device for useful information on a totally different level.
>
Nutty religious, (pseudo)philosophical and scientific ideas may be
memetically sticky and filled with mnemonic hooks, but the memetic
veracity filter of experimentation and the application of the verification
principle and popperian falsifiability exists only for science, not for
religion, and the application of aristotelian, deontic and godelian logic
(and a number of other species of logic) exists for philosophy (and to
some degree, insofar as applying the verification principle to
experimental results is an exercise utilizing inductive logic and disproof
via popperian falsifiability is a case of logical negation, in science), not
religion.
>
> much love and carrying on,
>
> -Jake



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:16 MDT