Re: RE[2]: virus: Hosts
Tue, 15 Oct 1996 00:02:22 -0500 (CDT)

On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, Hakeeb A. Nandalal wrote:

> Kenneth Boyd wrote :-
> >Regardless of the total space, if a meme takes too much
> >power to understand, it may not stay in long enough to compete.
> I'm tempted to agree that a "large" mind is required to hold a large
> "meme" like atheism, but what about brilliant theists like Einstein and
> DeCartes? I read in NewsWeek that one of the top Genetic Engineers
> working on the Human Genome project teaches Bible classes in his spare
> time. Can we differentiate between one "type" of brilliance versus
> another? These men are physics smart but "God meme" stupid?

#1) I differentiated "size" from "processing power" deliberately. The
two are VERY different. "How much?" vs. "How fast?" I am proposing that
some memes may require very high thinking rates to even comprehend, and
that the upper end of this trait is unevenly distributed among humans.

#2) Simplistic versions of the "God meme" are one thing. Realistic
versions [having complexity comparable to quantum mechanics, or General
Relativity] DO require that kind of intelligence to even consider.

#3) I have yet to see a simplistic version of "atheism". I propose that we
don't see slow-minded atheists because those with slow minds have problems
supporting the concept, regardless of their knowledge base.

> I believe the answer lies in a mental "uncertainty" chip in our heads
> and there is a random element if we're "pro God meme" or "anti God
> meme". The probability however is not equal, there are more people with
> "pro God meme" mental chips than those with "anti God meme" mental
> chips. This we can tell from observation of our societies where theists
> out-number atheists by something like (say) 10 to 1. Has anyone ever
> done a study of the actual ratio for say a single State or the whole
> U.S.?

This is about as simplistic an explanation as it gets....

/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/ Kenneth Boyd