6 ms·

What's your objective with this continuing discussion? Are you hoping to convince me to take a specific action or something? Wikipedia describes Memetics as "t

by xamuel 7y ago

What's your objective with this continuing discussion? Are you hoping to convince me to take a specific action or something? Wikipedia describes Memetics as "the study of information and culture based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution". A body of study is not an abstract concept. The thing being studied is the abstract concept. So, by Memetics, all along, I have meant the collective body of (academic) study/scholarship of memes. Since you say "Memetics is a label assigned to an abstract concept", it seems that's the root of the understanding. You're talking about the concept itself, while I'm talking about the study/literature of that concept. My objective with my original comment was to counter your claim that Memetics was high impact. I consider the objective moot now, since it's become apparent you're using "Memetics" in a nonstandard sense, and the rest of the audience is long gone. Memetics (the study of memes) is a useful path which has apparently led you to enlightenment and made you realize we're all laboring under illusions. It's not the only path, and now that you've reached enlightenment, you should realize that Memetics itself is just one more of those illusions you're opposed to. (In the same way, Buddhists say, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.") Trying to rid yourself of ignorance by your own willpower is futile. There is no solid ground to stand on, because everything is ignorance. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Dawkins and his type are priests of a religion based on trying to rid oneself of ignorance by one's own willpower. This will never work, and you'll always be miserable. Jesus said: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." You will never come to the ultimate truth via your own intellectual exercises. It's as futile as trying to write a dictionary with no circular definitions.

mistermann 7y ago
> What's your objective with this continuing discussion? As I stated: "I think it is useful (or at least interesting) to learn more about the nature/behaviors of intelligent people who do not have conflicting values or goals with me, or even conflicting abstract beliefs ("I would say reducing the amount of delusional beliefs held by individuals is extremely, urgently important"), yet who seem determined to seek ways to fail." Perhaps "find ways to misunderstand the question being asked or shift the subject" would have been more appropriate than "fail". (When reading this, please keep in mind I fully acknowledge your above words regarding the validity of the term "abstract beliefs" in this sentence. I hope you can overlook this and accept that I am simply restating this prior statement exactly as initially written, with full admission that it may fall short of absolutely perfect accuracy in choice of terms. See also: https://lifehacker.com/utilize-the-steel-man-tactic-to-argue-more-effectivel-1632402742 https://lifehacker.com/utilize-the-steel-man-tactic-to-argue... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19901735 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19901735 "I'm curious why you think a transition to a more enlightened..." ) > Are you hoping to convince me to take a specific action or something? Yes, answer the questions as written, or acknowledge that you choose not to (rather than leading the conversation off onto a tangent). > Wikipedia describes Memetics as "the study of information and culture based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution". A body of study is not an abstract concept. Speaking of pedantry....do you think the core idea or intent of this discussion from my perspective is the precise definition of the word "memetics"? Are you familiar with the meaning of the phrase "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"?" I have clearly said multiple times that my interest is related to the potential utility of a widespread, true understanding of the ideas discussed within memetics - whether it could make a difference in the world. > My objective with my original comment was to counter your claim that Memetics was high impact. And I have clearly addressed the poor choice of words in my initial statement, at least twice: - "I don't disagree with your assertion that ~"multiple people have recognized and described this phenomenon within human psychology and assigned it a variety of labels", or that there has so far been little noteworthy impact. My interest is about the potential of this knowledge." - "Hmmmm....on one hand this seems like all a silly misunderstanding, basically a pedantic difference of "impactful" vs "potentially impactful"." The conversation clearly moved on beyond that: "I'm in full agreement with the quoted paragraph. And I would say reducing the amount of delusional beliefs held by individuals is extremely, urgently important" ....and yet, you have once again pivoted back to whether Memetics is high impact, after already acknowledging you believe the ideas contained within are "extremely, urgently important". > I consider the objective moot now, since it's become apparent you're using "Memetics" in a nonstandard sense, and the rest of the audience is long gone. I'm not here to win points, I'm here to have a conversation and gain a deeper understanding of human nature (in this case, why people behave evasively in conversations). > Trying to rid yourself of ignorance by your own willpower is futile. There is no solid ground to stand on, because everything is ignorance. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Dawkins and his type are priests of a religion based on trying to rid oneself of ignorance by one's own willpower. This will never work, and you'll always be miserable. Jesus said: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." You will never come to the ultimate truth via your own intellectual exercises. It's as futile as trying to write a dictionary with no circular definitions. This all sounds a bit like those vague but persuasive/useful memes we were talking about earlier. A tangential one at that! ;)
- xamuel 7y ago
  Thanks, I'm flattered you're interested in learning from me. I'm not deliberately trying to be evasive. Believe it or not, I've been thinking of you as deliberately evasive. Achieving real mind-share with someone is MUCH harder than people think. Jesus said: "If two of you on the earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven." I'm fully behind your call for steelman/principle of charity, in fact, it feels serendipitous, because I've been praying recently for the Lord to help me better love my neighbors, and those links you posted are highly relevant! Jesus said: "Do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Maybe what he meant was, don't condescendingly think of people as swine, but rather, assume the best in them. Since you want to learn from me, one of my guiding principles is: there's far too much great material to read in a lifetime, so use the test of time to filter it. I'm currently reading the collected works of Shakespeare and finding it far more amazing than I expected. "A rose by any other name" is just one of many passages about names, self-denial, and so forth in Romeo and Juliet; to the point I'm convinced R&J is only a love story on the very surface, and has a far profounder hidden meaning. Shakespeare has passed the test of time. Dawkins hasn't, so I depriotize him. Maybe Dawkins is better than Shakespeare, but I consider that improbable because Dawkins hasn't passed the test of time yet. And if he were so great, he'd have Beatles-level fanfare. I'll read Dawkins when/if an editor asks me to peer-review one of Dawkins's papers or a paper that majorly cites him. >Do you think the core idea or intent of this discussion from my perspective is the precise definition of the word "memetics"? That was related to MY core intent (see my prev. comment). >Yes, answer the questions as written, or acknowledge that you choose not to Heretofore, I've been attempting to synthesize your comments and reply to them on-the-whole rather than bullet by bullet. >after already acknowledging you believe the ideas contained within are "extremely, urgently important" Again, this is like a man saying 'The ideas in Huffington Post are extremely, urgently important', because he read an article there about global warming. The "ideas contained within" are not unique to Memetics, Memetics just happens to be where you first encountered them. They've been around for thousands of years! (And as an aside, as an academic discipline, "Memetics" is just as trashy and low-brow as Huffington Post.) >This all sounds a bit like those vague but persuasive/useful memes we were talking about earlier. A tangential one at that! If you think people are laboring under illusions now, think how bad it was in the year 30 AD. Caesar was literally declaring himself a god, and enforcing it with state propaganda. THAT'S the kind of environment in which Jesus of Nazareth was spreading truth-bombs. And if Jesus hadn't done what he'd done, we'd still be enslaved by god-kings today.

by xamuel 7y ago

mistermann 7y ago

> What's your objective with this continuing discussion? As I stated: "I think it is useful (or at least interesting) to learn more about the nature/behaviors of intelligent people who do not have conflicting values or goals with me, or even conflicting abstract beliefs ("I would say reducing the amount of delusional beliefs held by individuals is extremely, urgently important"), yet who seem determined to seek ways to fail." Perhaps "find ways to misunderstand the question being asked or shift the subject" would have been more appropriate than "fail". (When reading this, please keep in mind I fully acknowledge your above words regarding the validity of the term "abstract beliefs" in this sentence. I hope you can overlook this and accept that I am simply restating this prior statement exactly as initially written, with full admission that it may fall short of absolutely perfect accuracy in choice of terms. See also: https://lifehacker.com/utilize-the-steel-man-tactic-to-argue-more-effectivel-1632402742 https://lifehacker.com/utilize-the-steel-man-tactic-to-argue... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19901735 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19901735 "I'm curious why you think a transition to a more enlightened..." ) > Are you hoping to convince me to take a specific action or something? Yes, answer the questions as written, or acknowledge that you choose not to (rather than leading the conversation off onto a tangent). > Wikipedia describes Memetics as "the study of information and culture based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution". A body of study is not an abstract concept. Speaking of pedantry....do you think the core idea or intent of this discussion from my perspective is the precise definition of the word "memetics"? Are you familiar with the meaning of the phrase "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"?" I have clearly said multiple times that my interest is related to the potential utility of a widespread, true understanding of the ideas discussed within memetics - whether it could make a difference in the world. > My objective with my original comment was to counter your claim that Memetics was high impact. And I have clearly addressed the poor choice of words in my initial statement, at least twice: - "I don't disagree with your assertion that ~"multiple people have recognized and described this phenomenon within human psychology and assigned it a variety of labels", or that there has so far been little noteworthy impact. My interest is about the potential of this knowledge." - "Hmmmm....on one hand this seems like all a silly misunderstanding, basically a pedantic difference of "impactful" vs "potentially impactful"." The conversation clearly moved on beyond that: "I'm in full agreement with the quoted paragraph. And I would say reducing the amount of delusional beliefs held by individuals is extremely, urgently important" ....and yet, you have once again pivoted back to whether Memetics is high impact, after already acknowledging you believe the ideas contained within are "extremely, urgently important". > I consider the objective moot now, since it's become apparent you're using "Memetics" in a nonstandard sense, and the rest of the audience is long gone. I'm not here to win points, I'm here to have a conversation and gain a deeper understanding of human nature (in this case, why people behave evasively in conversations). > Trying to rid yourself of ignorance by your own willpower is futile. There is no solid ground to stand on, because everything is ignorance. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Dawkins and his type are priests of a religion based on trying to rid oneself of ignorance by one's own willpower. This will never work, and you'll always be miserable. Jesus said: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." You will never come to the ultimate truth via your own intellectual exercises. It's as futile as trying to write a dictionary with no circular definitions. This all sounds a bit like those vague but persuasive/useful memes we were talking about earlier. A tangential one at that! ;)

xamuel 7y ago
Thanks, I'm flattered you're interested in learning from me. I'm not deliberately trying to be evasive. Believe it or not, I've been thinking of you as deliberately evasive. Achieving real mind-share with someone is MUCH harder than people think. Jesus said: "If two of you on the earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven." I'm fully behind your call for steelman/principle of charity, in fact, it feels serendipitous, because I've been praying recently for the Lord to help me better love my neighbors, and those links you posted are highly relevant! Jesus said: "Do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Maybe what he meant was, don't condescendingly think of people as swine, but rather, assume the best in them. Since you want to learn from me, one of my guiding principles is: there's far too much great material to read in a lifetime, so use the test of time to filter it. I'm currently reading the collected works of Shakespeare and finding it far more amazing than I expected. "A rose by any other name" is just one of many passages about names, self-denial, and so forth in Romeo and Juliet; to the point I'm convinced R&J is only a love story on the very surface, and has a far profounder hidden meaning. Shakespeare has passed the test of time. Dawkins hasn't, so I depriotize him. Maybe Dawkins is better than Shakespeare, but I consider that improbable because Dawkins hasn't passed the test of time yet. And if he were so great, he'd have Beatles-level fanfare. I'll read Dawkins when/if an editor asks me to peer-review one of Dawkins's papers or a paper that majorly cites him. >Do you think the core idea or intent of this discussion from my perspective is the precise definition of the word "memetics"? That was related to MY core intent (see my prev. comment). >Yes, answer the questions as written, or acknowledge that you choose not to Heretofore, I've been attempting to synthesize your comments and reply to them on-the-whole rather than bullet by bullet. >after already acknowledging you believe the ideas contained within are "extremely, urgently important" Again, this is like a man saying 'The ideas in Huffington Post are extremely, urgently important', because he read an article there about global warming. The "ideas contained within" are not unique to Memetics, Memetics just happens to be where you first encountered them. They've been around for thousands of years! (And as an aside, as an academic discipline, "Memetics" is just as trashy and low-brow as Huffington Post.) >This all sounds a bit like those vague but persuasive/useful memes we were talking about earlier. A tangential one at that! If you think people are laboring under illusions now, think how bad it was in the year 30 AD. Caesar was literally declaring himself a god, and enforcing it with state propaganda. THAT'S the kind of environment in which Jesus of Nazareth was spreading truth-bombs. And if Jesus hadn't done what he'd done, we'd still be enslaved by god-kings today.