Here is why it is worthless replying to a Brettster post.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Brett Robertson
Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 12:30
Subject: Re: virus: Technology (was manifest science)
>The argument whereby evolution is the same as innovation is called.
>*memetics* (which suggests that "human" logic is none other than
>material necessity which has been "pre-selected", somehow, for
Memetics: the theoretical and empirical science that studies the replication, spread and evolution of memes Meme: an information pattern, held in an individual's memory, which is capable of being copied to another individual's memory
I see nothing that indicates that your definition is accepted. Please quote souces rather than making unsubstantiated statements that are prima facia you redefining words on the fly such that your meaning is "private", i.e. unshared and worthless. Where do you imagine that your supposed pre-selection facility originated? As it stands, this is an unsupported hypothesis. A poor one, as it pre-supposes that the supposed "pre-selector agent" was "pre-selected" which leads directly into the "first cause" fallacy.
>This *pre-selection* criteria suggests a meta-physical environment (one
>which includes non-local survival strategies), a post-chance selection
>pattern (a pattern which has the potential ordering to NOT be negated
>through competition to an 50/ 50 chance for survival), and a logical
>action (a necessary effect which REPLICATES successful patterns--
>showing "intent"... as contrasted from the idea of mutation).
Single sentence paragraphs are a sure sign of poor education. Incorrect capitalization is a sure sign of illiteracy. Use of passive negative construction indicates the inability to think clearly and the lack of communications skills needed to express one's thoughts. Please desist from justifying statements on the basis of unsupported hypothesis. Either support them, label them or dispose of them.
Why should a "preselection criteria" suggest a "meta-physical environment" to you? Would a filter acting as a "pre-selection criteria" (e.g. two rocks in a stream bed selecting the maximum size of flotsam that could appear downstream) imply a "meta-physical environment". If you argue this is the case, please justify your assertion. Why does
"pre-selection" imply "post-selection"? Which deus ex fecia did you construct the "logical action" from anyway? A "logical action" implies a "logical actor". Please point to it.
>The environment allows for survival strategies which are not
>available (since it includes physical space, or distance); and, the
>that what is successful survives is an easy concept to grasp. Thus,
>main difference in memetics and genetics is in the idea of successful
>pattern formation (potentially successful patterns are called "memes").
What the hell are "survival strategies which are not immediately available"? What has physical space or distance to do with survival strategies? Ehat is the difference? You only mention some attributes which you (mistakenly it seems) attribute to the "environment". To have a difference, you need to refer to two things. One is not sufficient. Apropos of something, which environment are you refering to? Or have you redefined that too? Thus means, "it follows". Unfortunately, I don't see how you moved from the meaningless twaddle in the first half of the paragraph to the equally meaningless twaddle in the second half. Thus, it does not follow...
>Though memetics is in its infancy, we are encouraged by the possibility
>that successful patterns ARE formed and can replicate. I see no reason
>(since the other aspects of evolution can be explained without a human
>agent) to conclude that the meme is purely a human invention.
Memetics has been around since man started babbling. Or do you mean the study of memetics? In which case, even if you discount all the research prior to its being named "memetics" in 1976, that was over 20 years ago (take off your shoes and count from 1976 to 1999. You will run out of fingers and toes toes before you get to 1999) and a twenty year old infant is a frightening idea, just look in the mirror to obtain an example. Bear in mind too, that the first personal computers emerged in the same year. What do you find encouraging about this and how do you leap from the idea of patterns forming to evolution? It seems that you "think" (is that the word?) that because "other aspects of evolution can be explained without a human agent" that "the meme is purely a human invention." Yes Brett, the word since also means "it follows". Once again, a non causa fallacy from you. Would you say that "Since the carburator of a motor car can be explained without a baseball team", that you would conclude that nuclear power is purely the invention of a baseball coach? This in fact makes as much sense as your putative statement above. Maybe more.
Just in passing, you might explain the significance of the incorrect capitalization of "ARE" above.
Brett Lane Robertson
MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay ...........
Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to view great deals!: