>
>At 09:51 AM 5/21/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>Oh yea, it's heatin up, wonderful, proof that no matter how "enlightened"
we
>>become, it all comes down to feces throwing!! This gave me an idea, about
the
>>environment in mind that lets memes grow or fade. It seems to me that the
>mind,
>>a product of brain, has many influences that are internal - ie..
>neurochemical
>>balances, genetic tendencies etc... in which memes have to exist.
>
>Yes. As posted on Sat, 09 May 1998 14:16:32 -0700:
>
> Memes (bits of information, for lack of a short definition)
>do not contain nor manifest their own intentionality, and
>your memesphere (that is, the sum total of all the bits of
>information, and all the associations of bits of information,
>....and all the emergent patterns of associations of bits of
>information in your brain) is (at this level of analysis),
>functionally distinct from the biological function of the
>brain itself. The brain's intrinsic intelligence, tightly
>coupled with the operation of the limbic system, manifests
>its own emergent: cognition, or "thinking". The limbic system
>(acting as the MOTIVATOR, or "driving force") provides the
>primal urges and impulses, while intelligence (acting as the
>FACILITATOR, or "steering device") provides a mechanism to
>perceive patterns that enables associating things in the
>environment with the promise of satisfying the corresponding
>urges and drives (note that this also includes the urge or
>drive to avoid fear and pain, etc.). When the association and
>subsequent attainment is successful, the association is
>reinforced, when it is unsuccessful, it is weakened; but either
>way, the experience causes re-thinking or re-cognition
>(recognition) that serves to further develop the set of
>associations (meme-complexes) in the brain.
>
> This process, iterated countless trillions of times in ways large
>and small, gross and subtle, experiential and introspective, builds,
>over time, the size and complexity of the set of associations in the
>brain, and hence the depth in the level of abstractions therein.
>
> In essence, the limbic system is the motivator, the cortical
>structures are the facilitator, and the memesphere is the resulting
>set of (associations (of associations (of associations..of
>patterns))) received by the senses. These co-operate in synergy to
>produce the emergent property of individual awareness; i.e: the
>human mind.
>
> The symbolic representation of information (language) together
>with the vectors to reproduce it, or "communicate" (e.g.: speaking
>and listening, reading and writing), as well as a plurality of minds
>each able to recognize the benefits to itself, operate in synergy to
>produce the emergent property of "culture" or "memetics".
>
>>Any of you
>>that know me, know that i suspect that fear and reproduction are the most
>major
>>internal influences on mind (There are many others that play parts, but I
>>consider fear and sex to be the most primitive and powerful) I suspect
that
>>memes that use these basic environmental factors as building blocks or as
>>important parts of their makup, have a very high survival rate. I believe
>that
>>*religion* is a fear based meme, and is therefore very locked into mind. I
>>would also suspect that the opposite is somewhat true. I, who have
>dedicated a
>>great deal of personal effort to eliminating the concept of fear, perhaps
>have
>>an opposite problem. Memes that need fear to survive, don't do well in my
>>*mind*. This has at times caused me to be trusting when I should have been
>>weary, or perhaps I have chosen a more dangerous and less beneficial
>method of
>>accomplishing some goal due to my lack of *fear*.
>>
>>What do you guys think of the concept of "meme environment" in relation to
>>internal factors? Has this subject been broached before and I missed it?
>
>I may not have used enough example and analogy to trigger recognition,
based
>on the model you used in your own mind to represent the same abstract
concept.
>The models I host to represent concepts and ideas are Cartesian or
>"flow-chart"
>in nature, representing form and function, respectively, in patterns and
meta-
>patterns I have perceived. Yours seems to be more "organic" in nature, but
>also
>seems to amount to the same thing.
>Whatever works.
>
>>Sodom
>>Bill Roh
>
>Dan Plante
>------------------------------------------
> instincts --> input
> input + thinking --> data
> data + thinking --> information
> information + thinking --> knowledge
> knowledge + thinking --> understanding
>understanding + thinking --> wisdom
> wisdom + thinking -->
>------------------------------------------
>
>