On 17 Aug 2002 at 11:32, rhinoceros wrote:
> [Joe Dees]
> Blackmore is attempting to Buddhize memetics (it is her faith system).
> It is a strategy that cannot succeed, for good reasons. The central
> contention of the no-self school is that the belief that people have
> that we have selves is a delusion; however, this contention gets its
> throat pinched shut between the horns of a lethal dilemma. Either we
> possess selves or we do not. If we possess selves, then the belief
> that we do is no delusion; OTOH, if we do not possess selves, then
> there is no self to be deluded, hence also no delusion, for delusion,
> to exist, requires a deludee.
> I would find it more fair if one did a linguistic analysis of what
> Blackmore meant when she used the terms "we" and "being deluded" under
> the assumption that there is not a "self", and then proceeded to see
> whether any contradictions arise. Otherwise, she might counter that in
> her "self-less" conceptual framework even a machine can be said to be
> "deluded", and that we wrongly used a deluded concept of delusion
> associated with "self" in order to inject an antinomy into her theory.
> On the other hand, if we find out empirically, for example, that ideas
> obtained by participation in an action (which ideas she does not
> consider to be memes) play a significant part in our identity and
> behavior, then we can say that there is more than replicator memes in
> a person.
For there to be directed evolution and mutation of memes, a selecting self is
necessary. Since such focused creativity is quite typical of human memetic
evolution, this fact is prima face evidence of the human possession of both a
self-referential and self-conscious awareness and the free capacity to
selectively actualize the choices and innovations that it makes.
> This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on
> Church of Virus BBS.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:19 MDT