X-Message-Number: 28462
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:15:04 -0600
From: "Anthony ." <>
Subject: Re:
References: <>

> From: "egg plant" <>
> Subject: Memes and Genes
> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:25:59 +0000
>
> >Anthony:
> >What, then, is the cut-off point? Roughly speaking, which organisms do not
> >have minds or memes
>
> I was wondering when you'd bring up that idiotic argument.

It is idiotic to ask which organisms have minds and which do not!? Why
is this idiotic?

> You say,
> correctly, that if you keep making a mind simpler and simpler eventually it
> would be difficult to say if there was really a mind there or not; but then
> you conclude that because of that the entire concept must be meaningless.

You mean the concept "meme" not "mind" presumably? No, I do not think
"meme" is a meaningless concept for just that reason - so far you've
said that people are memes, minds are memes, the cosmos is a meme... I
fail to see how that is a helpful tool, but I may yet be enlightened.

> A
> 80 pound man is thin, a 800 pound man is fat, but you can't point to an
> exact point and say if this man gains one more ounce he will instantly
> change from thin to fat.

Yes, Zeno played that game with time, yet we *do* decide on cut-off
points. Your response did not answer my question. This is fine, I
don't expect any concept to be totally clear-cut in explanatory value.

> That reminds me, you once demanded

You make me sound so reasonable...

> to know what the first meme was. Well .,
> I'll tell you that just as soon as you tell me what the first gene was, what
> it did, and if it was made of DNA, RNA, protein, clay, or something else.

Fair enough. The thing is, biologists can do wonderful things with the
gene, no matter how difficult it is to explain the origins of life.
But I've not seen memeticists do anything of note with the "meme"
concept.

> >To clarify - by "consciousness" I do not mean
> >"self-awareness" but mindfulness - an proprioceptive awareness that allows
> >them to act of a basic organismic
> >level.
>
> Translation from the original Pompous-Speak: If you know where your shit's
> at you can act like an animal.

You can understand what I'm getting at from "the journal of
consciousness studies":

http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs/

Follow the link down the page reading:

Maxine Sheets-Johnson, Consciousness: a natural history (Volume 5, No.3)

But remember! If you don't read it, you become one of Henson's trolls.

>  Please note, I make no claim that my
> translation makes any more sense than the original. Big words are no
> substitute for big ideas.

I didn't think "big words" would intimidate you. Don't try and
invalidate my arguments by claiming I'm being obscurantist, just get a
dictionary.

> >I know that "drift" in not uncontroversial, being
> >both an argument for natural selection and against it
>
> It is not controversial that some mutations are harmful some are helpful and
> some are neutral,

Of course it is! How do you define harmful, helpful, neutral, and in
what circumstances!?

> And it is not controversial, it is idiotic, to say neutral mutations
> created language.

I've already explained that I should have included many more factors
in my brief tangent on language, but I often don't edit my posts. I
should, because you love seizing on typos to avoid answering
questions.

Genetic mutation is the basis for physiology - language arises from a
body *in situ* - a complex interaction between conspecifics and the
environment. This summary is of course an over-simplification. For
more, you might see:

 "Body Process in the Evolution of Language" by Mary LeCron Foster in
"Giving the Body Its Due". (1992).

To give you an idea, check out an abstract of leCron Fosters later work here:

http://www.uni-ulm.de/uni/intgruppen/memosys/desn24.htm

A

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28462