Memetics

[Cabal]

Indeed.

Man's reasoning vs the Spirit of the Lord generates cognitive dissonance.

Although in some cases it is perfectly possible that someone's conception of the Spirit of the Lord is causing them to err.

 

[AV1611VET]

Although in some cases it is perfectly possible that someone's conception of the Spirit of the Lord is causing them to err.

That's a different story altogether.

We're talking the Spirit attempting to correct someone in error.

 

[Cabal]

That's a different story altogether.

We're talking the Spirit attempting to correct someone in error.

Except one might not really be hearing the Spirit - their conception of him might be wrong. Given the heavy subjective basis of Christian experience, I don't see how anyone can really be sure they are hearing it.

Also, if God is not an author of confusion, why would he resort to this to convict someone spiritually?

 

[Chesterton]

Bad choice of word, I apologise.

I'm assuming you're referring to the memetics section in The God Delusion and the remonstration is in The Greatest Show on Earth?

Well, the memetics sections of Selfish Gene and the remonstration about not believing unevidenced things which is a lot of God Delusion. I haven't read Greatest Show.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except one might not really be hearing the Spirit - their conception of him might be wrong.

For the third time -- I'm talking about the real Spirit of God prompting someone who is teaching otherwise.

Yes, the result would be the same (viz. cognitive dissonance); but I'm talking the real-deal here.

 

[Cabal]

Yes, the result would be the same (viz. cognitive dissonance); but I'm talking the real-deal here.

So if you can't tell them apart, how can you definitely claim that it's genuine?

 

[AV1611VET]

So if you can't tell them apart, how can you definitely claim that it's genuine?

I don't have to tell them apart, or claim they are genuine or fake.

I'm simply addressing this:

Clearly not. The cognitive dissonance inherent in some belief systems however may well be due to the sorts of ideas they contain and would contribute to their persistence.

If cognitive dissonance is 'inherent' in a belief system, it could very-well be because their belief system is wrong, and God is trying to get their attention.

 

[Cabal]

I don't have to tell them apart, or claim they are genuine or fake.

I'm simply addressing this:

Ok.

If cognitive dissonance is 'inherent' in a belief system, it could very-well be because their belief system is wrong, and God is trying to get their attention.

It could well be. However I was partly referring to Christianity and YECism, so I'm not sure whether one can claim that that's the case in that instance.

 

[juvenissun]

Sure, but not all of that 50% are creationists (thank the Lord) and I have little reason to trust them given my experience.



I think there is some merit to the idea of memetics. Not necessarily in a physical sense, but in how ideas persist and spread.

That is the beauty (and danger) of free will.

 

[Cabal]

That is the beauty (and danger) of free will.

To an extent. I think some ideas bias one's choice by their very nature.

 

[juvenissun]

To an extent. I think some ideas bias one's choice by their very nature.

Origin of that?

Why are you you?

 

[Cabal]

Origin of that?

Why are you you?

I don't follow, sorry. Could you rephrase, please?

 

[juvenissun]

I don't follow, sorry. Could you rephrase, please?

Never mind. I was thinking about something else. Sorry.

 

[marlowe007]

It's an interesting idea. I don't think anyone parades it around as science. It's a lot of common sense, anyway. The same logic that was used by Darwin to hypothesize natural selection.

If you read Susan Blackmore's book, she goes to great lengths to pass it off as bonafide, evidence-based science.

At any rate, I think it's a fair model for explaining intellectual fads. Ideas as viruses.

 

[Naraoia]

What's the deal with it? I get the impression it's not highly rated, but those quickest to dismiss it that I've encountered have usually been creationists.

Given a certain kind of thought, surely some ideas will stand to survive better than others?

Memetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Going on my memory of some lectures here, but I think the main scientific criticism of memetics isn't that it's a bad or implausible idea (also, I have no idea what some of the Criticism section @ wikipedia means...).

These are the objections that I vaguely remember: One, the definition of a meme is vague at best. Two, that it's very difficult to test (then again, I distinctly recall that someone managed to do an experiment with the meme concept). Three, that everything interesting memeticists say is also said by other schools of thought, so memetics is simply superfluous. I know I didn't agree with all the criticisms the prof brought up (the superfluousness, for one thing), but ATM, my relevant notes are in one of several completely stuffed boxes, so for now that's all I can say

If you happen to come across a book called Sense and Nonsense, that was our textbook for that module, and it should discuss all of the things I mentioned (my copy is also in a box )

Yes, that's true. Perhaps that's why the concept of memetics specifically has fallen into disrepute, because this quantum of knowledge, the meme, does not appear to be evidenced (for now). I cannot think of another aspect of memetics that could be addressed scientifically - but then again, I have not yet read up on the topic.

Then again, perhaps it could be addressed by social sciences....

Surely you're not implying that the social sciences are not scientific?

 

[lesliedellow]

If you know something very well, then your response to a comment of a subject tend to be very quick, to the point and not bothered to explain. This is 100% sure.

If you know nothing about an issue, you still could behave the same. But that occurs only 50% in a population.

So, what does your experience say?

This isn't the first time somebody has come up with a bright idea which saws off the branch it is sitting on. If our minds are infested with ideas which can spread from one person to another, without any special concern for their truth value, then how do you know that doesn't apply to the theory of memes itself, or to the theory of evolution, or to the whole of the physical sciences?

Dawkins is willing to undermine his own profession, and even the very idea of truth, in his attempt to do down religion.

 

[Naraoia]

This isn't the first time somebody has come up with a bright idea which saws off the branch it is sitting on. If our minds are infested with ideas which can spread from one person to another, without any special concern for their truth value, then how do you know that doesn't apply to the theory of memes itself, or to the theory of evolution, or to the whole of the physical sciences?

Dawkins is willing to undermine his own profession, and even the very idea of truth, in his attempt to do down religion.

I'm not one to defend Dawkins when it comes to religion, but that's not completely fair. Memes, just like genes, need hosts to survive. By the nature of the meme, some of them must have something to do with truth - if all the ideas in our head were concerned only with being catchy and had no relevance to reality, we couldn't react appropriately to the world, in which case we would be extinct.

How to tell which ideas are just catchy and which describe reality? That remains a question whether you subscribe to the meme concept or not. It's essentially the same philosophical question that asks whether objective reality exists. It hardly undermines anything that good old epistemology hasn't already undermined.