05 Jan 2008, 2:22 am
05 Jan 2008, 2:25 am
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
05 Jan 2008, 2:38 am
05 Jan 2008, 2:48 am
05 Jan 2008, 3:20 am
05 Jan 2008, 4:39 am
05 Jan 2008, 4:06 pm
05 Jan 2008, 5:16 pm
05 Jan 2008, 6:11 pm
jonk wrote:
Well, I don't take your idea about what morals are, I suppose. Maybe I should focus on that. Sorry about the rest.
I accept the fact that you disagree with me.
We both have right to have different opinions.
jonk wrote:
Morals are negative feedback memes that are naturally selected, in an evolutionary process like much of the rest of nature. Envision that once humans developed a means by which memes could be replicated and mutated and where they compete with other memes in a natural environment, some will be selected for and some selected against.
I believe that you use Dawkins theory of 'Memes'.
Which lead us to your statement:
jonk wrote:
I'm not sure we have any kind of testable theory for self-awareness, yet.
To see what are memes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
Quote:
A meme (pronounced /ˈmiːm/), as defined within memetic theory, constitutes a theoretical unit of cultural information, the building block of culture or cultural evolution which spreads through diffusion propagating from one mind to another analogously to the way in which a gene propagates from one organism to another as a unit of genetic information and of biological evolution.[1] Multiple memes may propagate as cooperative groups called memeplexes (meme complexes).
Biologist and evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins coined the term meme in 1976.[2] He gave as examples tunes, catch-phrases, beliefs, clothing fashions, ways of making pots, and the technology of building arches.
Biologist and evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins coined the term meme in 1976.[2] He gave as examples tunes, catch-phrases, beliefs, clothing fashions, ways of making pots, and the technology of building arches.
Basically,theory of memes are projection of genetic concept to sociology and culture.
I personally think that this is very confusing.
How can we test theory of memes,by your own criteria?
Quote:
Lack of philosophical appeal
One might regard the reduction of the highly complex nature of ideas (such as religion, politics, war, justice, and science itself) to a one-dimensional series of memes as an abstraction and, as such, a process which does not increase one’s understanding. The highly interconnected, multi-layering of such ideas resists memetic simplification to an atomic or molecular form; as does the fact that each of our lives remains fully enmeshed and involved in such "memes". One cannot view memes through a microscope in the way one can detect genes. The levelling-off of all such interesting "memes" down to some neutralized molecular "substance" such as "meme-substance" would introduce a bias toward scientism and abandon the very thing that makes ideas interesting, richly available, and worth studying.[23][24]
To see such an argument for holism as against the kind of atomic reductionism implied by memetics, see Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism"[25]
One might regard the reduction of the highly complex nature of ideas (such as religion, politics, war, justice, and science itself) to a one-dimensional series of memes as an abstraction and, as such, a process which does not increase one’s understanding. The highly interconnected, multi-layering of such ideas resists memetic simplification to an atomic or molecular form; as does the fact that each of our lives remains fully enmeshed and involved in such "memes". One cannot view memes through a microscope in the way one can detect genes. The levelling-off of all such interesting "memes" down to some neutralized molecular "substance" such as "meme-substance" would introduce a bias toward scientism and abandon the very thing that makes ideas interesting, richly available, and worth studying.[23][24]
To see such an argument for holism as against the kind of atomic reductionism implied by memetics, see Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism"[25]
Its like I'm using terminology from nuclear physics,in order to explain politics.
How can we use physical example (Gene) from natural sciences to explain something non-physical?
jonk wrote:
Memes operate in, and compete within, the mental space of humans themselves living in a natural environment, so to say.
How can we know that?
jonk wrote:
I'm not willing to embrace your chain of logic leading to your conclusion, lacking any rigorous meaning to "self-aware."
So you are critical of premise 'Self-awareness',not about logical formulation of argument?
But your critic was that my chain of reasoning was not logical,by presenting wrong formulation of my argument.
I have presented that my 'chain of logic' was properly logically formulated,and is therefore logical.
You can,off course disagree with premises of my argument,not with formulation of argument itself.
jonk wrote:
But without the ability to make any rigorous deductions from that term, in order to even test the idea here and there, I think the chain of reasoning is starkly lacking in objectivity.
Chain of reasoning is logically objective,if its form has been properly logically formulated.
You cannot disagree with my chain of reasoning,but only with premises on which this chain is based,and this is quite fine.
I don't see how 'meme theory' can be tested as well.
jonk wrote:
In the sense that humans have established means by which memes and ideas can replicate, mutate (picked up by someone and modified by their imagination and put back out into the natural meme environment through publication, for example), and be naturally selected,
Again,how this can be tested?
P.S
Seems to me that entire 'meme theory' is based on 'naturalistic fallacy':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
Quote:
A meme (pronounced /ˈmiːm/), as defined within memetic theory, constitutes a theoretical unit of cultural information, the building block of culture or cultural evolution which spreads through diffusion propagating from one mind to another analogously to the way in which a gene propagates from one organism to another as a unit of genetic information and of biological evolution.[1] Multiple memes may propagate as cooperative groups called memeplexes (meme complexes).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
Quote:
The naturalistic fallacy is often claimed to be a formal fallacy. It was described and named by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica. Moore stated that a naturalistic fallacy was committed whenever a philosopher attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of one or more natural properties (such as "pleasant", "more evolved", "desired", etc.)....
Moore goes on to explain that he pays special attention to the fallacy as it occurs in ethics, and identifies that specific form of the fallacy as ‘naturalistic’, because (1) it is so commonly committed in ethics, and (2) because committing the fallacy in ethics involves confusing a natural object (such as survival or pleasure) with goodness, something that is (he argues) not a natural object. However, it is important to note that in spite of his rhetorical focus on the ‘naturalistic’ nature of the fallacy, Moore was not any more satisfied with theories that attempted to define goodness in terms of non-natural properties than he was with naturalistic theories;
Moore goes on to explain that he pays special attention to the fallacy as it occurs in ethics, and identifies that specific form of the fallacy as ‘naturalistic’, because (1) it is so commonly committed in ethics, and (2) because committing the fallacy in ethics involves confusing a natural object (such as survival or pleasure) with goodness, something that is (he argues) not a natural object. However, it is important to note that in spite of his rhetorical focus on the ‘naturalistic’ nature of the fallacy, Moore was not any more satisfied with theories that attempted to define goodness in terms of non-natural properties than he was with naturalistic theories;
05 Jan 2008, 7:43 pm
Witt wrote:
I accept the fact that you disagree with me.
We both have right to have different opinions.
We both have right to have different opinions.
Agreed, then.
Witt wrote:
jonk wrote:
Morals are negative feedback memes that are naturally selected, in an evolutionary process like much of the rest of nature. Envision that once humans developed a means by which memes could be replicated and mutated and where they compete with other memes in a natural environment, some will be selected for and some selected against.
I believe that you use Dawkins theory of 'Memes'.Actually, I don't use his. In fact, I've never read a word from Dawkins on the subject. Not one word. These ideas have developed in my mind from different sources and thoughts on them, over the last 10 years or so. I _do_ need to read Dawkins, one day. I admit that. But I haven't done so, as yet. So if what I'm talking about is similar, it is indirectly similar coming from other tainted sources, perhaps.
Witt wrote:
Which lead us to your statement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
Basically,theory of memes are projection of genetic concept to sociology and culture.
jonk wrote:
I'm not sure we have any kind of testable theory for self-awareness, yet.
To see what are memes:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
Quote:
A meme (pronounced /ˈmiːm/), as defined within memetic theory, constitutes a theoretical unit of cultural information, the building block of culture or cultural evolution which spreads through diffusion propagating from one mind to another analogously to the way in which a gene propagates from one organism to another as a unit of genetic information and of biological evolution.[1] Multiple memes may propagate as cooperative groups called memeplexes (meme complexes).
Biologist and evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins coined the term meme in 1976.[2] He gave as examples tunes, catch-phrases, beliefs, clothing fashions, ways of making pots, and the technology of building arches.
Biologist and evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins coined the term meme in 1976.[2] He gave as examples tunes, catch-phrases, beliefs, clothing fashions, ways of making pots, and the technology of building arches.
Basically,theory of memes are projection of genetic concept to sociology and culture.
Interesting. I've not read these. I won't comment on them, though, since I have my own ideas about it and I don't need those to discuss my own thoughts.
Witt wrote:
I personally think that this is very confusing.
In general, I frankly don't find the above very confusing. It's not entirely precise, of course. But there are books that attempt to develop the ideas more carefully than some simple definition has any business trying to do. Taken as far as they were meant to be taken in the above, they seem not inconsistent with what I'm imagining, though I do think that my suggestion for catastrophe theory to apply here may be a unique contribution to developing the ideas more rigorously. But the above isn't what I'd say, anyway. I've said here what I am thinking on, though in no way do I mean to say that it is anything more than a suggestion about a possible line of research. Certainly, I don't hold it as established fact. Don't misunderstand me there, please.Witt wrote:
How can we test theory of memes,by your own criteria?
Actually, in many of the same ways that archaeology itself tests various ideas. Although I admit that anything at this level is difficult -- if it were easy, we'd already understand human social systems much better than we already do -- but also I can imagine ways in which these ideas might be further researched. It's probably still far too early to actually propose rigorous hypotheses that can be deduced to specific circumstances, though. More research is certainly required before we get there.In addition, there is no question at all about the theories of self-organized criticality operating in nature. If you've any doubt about it, you've only to look at a snowflake or to read the book I mentioned. There is actually quite a bit of mathematical development on this score, as well, allowing rather good deduction to specifics and these have been found congruent with nature as a matter of experimental result. Whether that applies to morals and ethics is admittedly a different question, but I don't find it at all difficult to fathom in that context. In fact, it seems almost too easy to see.
But if you imagine that my lack of proposing a specific, rigorous theory regarding ethics and morals makes your suggestion any better, it doesn't. In fact, I can't even imagine any objective line of inquiry developing from it. I'm open to you showing me wrong there, though. And I'd enjoy seeing it, quite frankly.
I've only offered some thoughts I've had and made the point that I don't see much content in your point. Feel free to work at providing more content, though. I'd like to see that.
Witt wrote:
Quote:
Lack of philosophical appeal
One might regard the reduction of the highly complex nature of ideas (such as religion, politics, war, justice, and science itself) to a one-dimensional series of memes as an abstraction and, as such, a process which does not increase one’s understanding. The highly interconnected, multi-layering of such ideas resists memetic simplification to an atomic or molecular form; as does the fact that each of our lives remains fully enmeshed and involved in such "memes". One cannot view memes through a microscope in the way one can detect genes. The levelling-off of all such interesting "memes" down to some neutralized molecular "substance" such as "meme-substance" would introduce a bias toward scientism and abandon the very thing that makes ideas interesting, richly available, and worth studying.[23][24]
To see such an argument for holism as against the kind of atomic reductionism implied by memetics, see Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism"[25]
One might regard the reduction of the highly complex nature of ideas (such as religion, politics, war, justice, and science itself) to a one-dimensional series of memes as an abstraction and, as such, a process which does not increase one’s understanding. The highly interconnected, multi-layering of such ideas resists memetic simplification to an atomic or molecular form; as does the fact that each of our lives remains fully enmeshed and involved in such "memes". One cannot view memes through a microscope in the way one can detect genes. The levelling-off of all such interesting "memes" down to some neutralized molecular "substance" such as "meme-substance" would introduce a bias toward scientism and abandon the very thing that makes ideas interesting, richly available, and worth studying.[23][24]
To see such an argument for holism as against the kind of atomic reductionism implied by memetics, see Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism"[25]
I think I'll need to you to explain what you make of the above. I can't argue with a quote. It doesn't respond, sadly. It's the second time in this same post that you've brought in the words of others, as though that helps in a debate. Since I can't argue with those who are not here, there really is no point to this exercise. Say what you can defend and defend it.
Witt wrote:
Its like I'm using terminology from nuclear physics,in order to explain politics.
Hmm?
Witt wrote:
How can we use physical example (Gene) from natural sciences to explain something non-physical?
While ethics and morals operate in our internal states of mind, they do influence our actions. Those can be addressed by science, I think. In quantum mechanics, to pose a not so good parallel, there are non-observable states which do influence outcomes that can be observed. They are important, in other words, even if they themselves cannot be observed more directly.
I do imagine that morals and ethics are observable. Not what is in your head, of course. But the transcription (copying) processes, their congruences with human behavior and action, and so on are all amenable to science. So I'm still not sure why you bother suggesting that they are non-physical. Certainly, organized forms of ethics and morals are decidedly observable and internal states can be indirectly explored, as well. Not only that, but if good theory is sufficient to deduce mathematics to express measurable quantities, these theories can be rejected or else the weight of evidence might bolster them.
Witt wrote:
jonk wrote:
Memes operate in, and compete within, the mental space of humans themselves living in a natural environment, so to say.
How can we know that?I still don't find your argument an argument, at all. My failure to pose one you accept bears not the least upon that fact.
I'll stop at this point, though there is more. I don't want to excessively belabor the differences in our positions, when it is already clear we aren't finding purchase with each other. No harm in that. But really, the rest is only you quoting others, again, and I find that terribly boring.
To be honest, I just wanted to put out an idea to see how it rings. If it doesn't with you, we are done. I don't have any desire to convince you. Mostly, what I'm looking for are ideas from others who may already be thinking somewhat along these lines, but enough differently that they can pose some interesting thoughts I've failed to consider. I don't think you are that person.
As far as your argument goes, though, it has no content depending as it does on some hand-waving idea of self-awareness. I think we need to nail that one down to share before I have much more to say about it. It finds no purchase in my mind, just now.
Jon
05 Jan 2008, 8:36 pm
05 Jan 2008, 8:52 pm
05 Jan 2008, 9:22 pm
jonk wrote:
Actually, I don't use his. In fact, I've never read a word from Dawkins on the subject. Not one word. These ideas have developed in my mind from different sources and thoughts on them, over the last 10 years or so. I _do_ need to read Dawkins, one day. I admit that. But I haven't done so, as yet. So if what I'm talking about is similar, it is indirectly similar coming from other tainted sources, perhaps.
I simply mentioned Richard Dawkins,since he is basically one main architects of Memetic theory,and what you have said sounds very similar to views presented by Dawkins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
Quote:
Origins and concepts
Richard Dawkins coined the term meme, which first came into popular use with the publication of his book The Selfish Gene in 1976. Dawkins based the word on a shortening of the Greek "mimeme" (something imitated), making it sound similar to "gene". The concept received relatively little attention until the late 1980s,[citation needed] when several academics took it up, notably the American philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett, who promoted the idea firstly in his book on the philosophy of mind, Consciousness Explained (1991), and then in Darwin's Dangerous Idea (1995). Robert Anton Wilson also discussed the concept in his writings.
Richard Dawkins coined the term meme, which first came into popular use with the publication of his book The Selfish Gene in 1976. Dawkins based the word on a shortening of the Greek "mimeme" (something imitated), making it sound similar to "gene". The concept received relatively little attention until the late 1980s,[citation needed] when several academics took it up, notably the American philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett, who promoted the idea firstly in his book on the philosophy of mind, Consciousness Explained (1991), and then in Darwin's Dangerous Idea (1995). Robert Anton Wilson also discussed the concept in his writings.
jonk wrote:
Interesting. I've not read these. I won't comment on them, though, since I have my own ideas about it and I don't need those to discuss my own thoughts.
Ok,then...
Since you mentioned 'memes',I just posted definition of it.
Your own views seems to me kinda similar to that definition,but then again you are more qualified to interpret your own thoughts then me.
jonk wrote:
Certainly, I don't hold it as established fact. Don't misunderstand me there, please.
Ok,I its not my intention to misinterpret you.
jonk wrote:
Actually, in many of the same ways that archaeology itself tests various ideas.
Logic may test ideas for self-consistency and coherency....
I'm not sure that archaeology 'test various ideas',as I recall it simply discovers material objects that were created by various cultures.
But in meme theory,material objects create cultures.
jonk wrote:
In addition, there is no question at all about the theories of self-organized criticality operating in nature.
Yes,but projecting naturalist theories,on the level of ethics and morality seems to be 'naturalistic fallacy'.
jonk wrote:
If you've any doubt about it, you've only to look at a snowflake or to read the book I mentioned.
Snowflake is material object,while morality obviously is not.This is again,I believe 'naturalistic fallacy'.
jonk wrote:
But if you imagine that my lack of proposing a specific, rigorous theory regarding ethics and morals makes your suggestion any better, it doesn't. In fact, I can't even imagine any objective line of inquiry developing from it.
I have just stated my opinion on the issue,without any implication that is 'better'.
But,then you are in the same position in which I am (according to you).
You have said:
jonk wrote:
I'm not willing to embrace your chain of logic leading to your conclusion, lacking any rigorous meaning to "self-aware." I think I can get there by a different route, perhaps. But without the ability to make any rigorous deductions from that term, in order to even test the idea here and there, I think the chain of reasoning is starkly lacking in objectivity.
jonk wrote:
I've only offered some thoughts I've had and made the point that I don't see much content in your point. Feel free to work at providing more content, though.
I don't see much content in your theory either.
Your memes are objective as my 'self-awareness'.
But what is content of your theory?
jonk wrote:
It's not entirely precise, of course. But there are books that attempt to develop the ideas more carefully than some simple definition has any business trying to do.
jonk wrote:
jonk wrote:
I'm not willing to embrace your chain of logic leading to your conclusion, lacking any [b]rigorous meaning to "self-aware."[/b] I think I can get there by a different route, perhaps.
And you actually offered identical route.
I believe that perhaps implies:"Your theory is not enough precise,and objective,this is not good,and therefore I offer another that is not precise and objective."
jonk wrote:
I think I'll need to you to explain what you make of the above. I can't argue with a quote. It doesn't respond, sadly.
Quote is example of independent source of critics of memetics,and quote is example of this 'another source'.
I wanted to show that memetic theory had its critics,and that I'm not only one that doubt in its validity.
jonk wrote:
While ethics and morals operate in our internal states of mind, they do influence our actions.
But in memetics, our ethics and morals are influenced by genes,which is opposite of this example.
jonk wrote:
Certainly, organized forms of ethics and morals are decidedly observable and internal states can be indirectly explored, as well.
They are observable,but what is not observable is their connection with genes,and then using genetic terminology on something that is not gene.
jonk wrote:
Not only that, but if good theory is sufficient to deduce mathematics to express measurable quantities, these theories can be rejected or else the weight of evidence might bolster them.
Ethics and morals are QUALITATIVE,and cannot be measured by quantitative means.
You cannot measure and calculate moral codes and ethical instances by mathematical methods,since they belong to qualitative interpretations of actions.
jonk wrote:
I still don't find your argument an argument, at all. My failure to pose one you accept bears not the least upon that fact.
Well I don't see how your argument is an argument,when its based on logical fallacy(naturalistic one).
You cannot define something non-physical with something that is physical.
jonk wrote:
To be honest, I just wanted to put out an idea to see how it rings. If it doesn't with you, we are done.
Aha,seems that you just wanted to see acceptance of your views.
jonk wrote:
Mostly, [b]what I'm looking for are ideas from others who may already be thinking somewhat along these lines, but enough differently that they can pose some interesting thoughts I've failed to consider. I don't think you are that person.
So,you are searching for someone that shares your opinion,but that can help you to straighten this opinion further?
Why have you started this conversation with me in the first place?
jonk wrote:
As far as your argument goes, though, it has no content depending as it does on some hand-waving idea of self-awareness.
Does this mean that if you disagree with something,then this have no content?
Your memes are even more ghostly then my self-awareness.
Self-awareness is self-evident,since first thing I know is myself.
I'm me,that is basis of self-awareness.
A=A is identity statement in logic.
P.S
Jonk wrote:
I think I can get there by a different route, perhaps. But without the ability to make any rigorous deductions from that term, in order to even test the idea here and there, I think the chain of reasoning is starkly lacking in objectivity.
Jonk wrote:
But if you imagine that my lack of proposing a specific, rigorous theory regarding ethics and morals makes your suggestion any better, it doesn't.
Jonk wrote:
It's probably still far too early to actually propose rigorous hypotheses that can be deduced to specific circumstances, though.
05 Jan 2008, 9:41 pm
05 Jan 2008, 11:27 pm
05 Jan 2008, 11:56 pm
jonk wrote:
I find myself quite confused by your use of "naturalist fallacy" except that it sounds very much like some kind of religious clap-trap.
I don't see how definition of some fallacy can be religious clap-trap?
jonk wrote:
It may not be, but I've had that term bandied by others and to a person they were coming from a superstitious point of view, which I do not share at all.
The fact that someone was superstitious and used example of 'naturalist fallacy',does not imply that formulation that something is naturalistic fallacy is itself superstitious.
jonk wrote:
And with those folks in the past (I have a University education in theology, though no degree in it) there was very little we could share in terms of the fundamentals underlying our world views.
Well at least,you admit that you have world view,and this is something I respect.
jonk wrote:
What intrigues me about morals and ethics is that I can now see some methods by which they may be brought into the sphere of scientific study and research. And that's actually pretty exciting to consider.
Its quite exiting,but is it true?
jonk wrote:
I enjoy thinking about ways to develop theories that can be used for rigorous deduction to specific situations, both predictive and explanatory in quantitative ways.
Unfortunately,memetics is not deductive,but inductive.
Specialized(assumed) biological laws,memeticians generalize to human society as whole.
From gene (particular) to human society (general).
jonk wrote:
I didn't know before, but now I gather you have a superstitious point of view on this subject which informs your modest presentation about what morals are and how they arrive. And we'll just have to leave it there. Saying "Self-awareness is self-evident" isn't valuable to me.
Well,if you don't value something,that doesn't necessary imply that this something is superstitious.But I understand your opinion.
jonk wrote:
I very much do appreciate your time, though, and don't mean to diminish that. You have honored me more than I deserve. I just don't find it interesting. That's not your fault. It's mine.
No problem,Jon...
At least you are very honest (unlike some people on this board),and I truly respect that, no matter if I disagree with you.
Cheers
