From: David McFadzean (david@lucifer.com)
Date: Tue Nov 11 2003 - 10:42:21 MST
From: "Keith Henson" <hkhenson@rogers.com>
> >The concept of self is replicable in that if I act or react to something
> >that you do, you are reinforced with a sense that you are a separate
> >entity. No, it cannot be taught or passed on like langauage or religion,
> >in that you are right. But it is still something that is learned, not
> >ingrained into the brain's "hardware." If it is learned, it is transmitted.
>
> That is not true. You can learn things that are never transmitted from a
> previous knowledge source. One example, you can set and learn the
> combination of a safe that you never tell anyone. Second example, you
I would say that a meme is an idea that *can* be replicated through
communication. If the idea has been replicated, then obviously it
can be. If it hasn't (yet) been replicated, then we would have to
have to examine it more closely to see if it is possible. In the
example of the combination to the safe, I see no reason why it
could not be.
By analogy, a gene that has not yet been replicated is still a gene.
> Ideas about "self" such as "immortal soul" or "thetans" are learned and are
> memes. "Identity" itself however is not learned and *is* a function of
> mammalian brain hardware. Ask yourself if a dog or a cat has
> "identity"? Would it still have an identity in a world where it never met
> another animal of any kind? Of course it would!
Why do you associate the "I" meme with identity rather than ideas about self?
You seem to have decided in advance that the "I" meme is not a meme, and
gone to great lengths to show why, rather than interpreting the "I" meme
as a meme and asking what it could possibly refer to. Why?
David
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 11 2003 - 10:42:32 MST