Author Topic: No strings attached freedom  (Read 21767 times)

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

  • Probably
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 11430
    • View Profile
Re: No strings attached freedom
« Reply #45 on: December 09, 2008, 05:23:35 pm »
ATTN: RATATOSK.

I think you're getting hung up on the negative connotations of the word prison.


EOT.

Blarg, that's why I put the smiley there. (Although, IMO, a prison which you are trapped in from birth to death, with no hope of escape... seems like a pretty negative metaphor, chock full of negative connotations.)

Besides, I'm much more interested in the memetic aspect of the discussion. Particularly, the question of if "I Am" is just a meme... or if something must exist under all the memes...
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 62211
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: No strings attached freedom
« Reply #46 on: December 09, 2008, 05:27:33 pm »
If a meme is like a thought, it must needs thinking in order to exist.

Therefore a structure of thinking must be present.

That creature with a potential for thought is the "I".

Would a human completely isolated from other humans develop a personality?  I say yes.

So, unless the "I AM" meme can spontaneously generate (which, AFAIK runs counter to most meme theory), then it is the ACT OF THINKING that creates identity.


Cramulus

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 21362
    • View Profile
    • Cramul.us
Re: No strings attached freedom
« Reply #47 on: December 09, 2008, 05:30:55 pm »
Rat, can you think of a more accurate word than prison which describes the self-limiting choices we make? I feel like the Golden Sphere of Possibility dodges the doom and gloom connotation but totally misses what we're trying to describe. By the way, we have several threads on this topic (reconceptualizing the BIP), but it really doesn't seem relevant to this discussion because I know you know what we mean.

Anyway I think we're getting kind of far away from Cain's original point, so I'll drop a link to a relevant old thread about this very topic:

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=12962.0
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=12962.msg424708#msg424708 (page 3 of thread)





anyway, gotta buzz off to a job interview, wish me luck

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

  • Probably
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 11430
    • View Profile
Re: No strings attached freedom
« Reply #48 on: December 09, 2008, 05:35:29 pm »
If a meme is like a thought, it must needs thinking in order to exist.

Therefore a structure of thinking must be present.

That creature with a potential for thought is the "I".

Would a human completely isolated from other humans develop a personality?  I say yes.

So, unless the "I AM" meme can spontaneously generate (which, AFAIK runs counter to most meme theory), then it is the ACT OF THINKING that creates identity.



I agree entirely. I would argue that there has to be a basis, an 'I' in order to learn memes. From my understanding memes are brought into the self through learning from others. We must have the concept of a separated identity in order to learn/mimic the memetic infector. Now, the 'I' in the sense of Who I think of when I think of 'me'... that does seem to be a hash of all the memes I've been infected with... on top of the golden kernel of 'Iness'... maybe?


Good luck on the Interview Cram ;-)

And the BiP stuff was really just a side comment, I don't think the debate really needs to be rehashed here ;-)

On the flip side, though, I think this does tie in with Cains OP... after all, these two concepts, that we are driven and made of memes... and that freedom exists in actions... must either fit together in some way... or counter each other in some way. It seems to me that if we could connect these two models usefully, we might just have something (but... you know me and my models ;-) ).
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 62211
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: No strings attached freedom
« Reply #49 on: December 09, 2008, 05:42:34 pm »
If a meme is like a thought, it must needs thinking in order to exist.

Therefore a structure of thinking must be present.

That creature with a potential for thought is the "I".

Would a human completely isolated from other humans develop a personality?  I say yes.

So, unless the "I AM" meme can spontaneously generate (which, AFAIK runs counter to most meme theory), then it is the ACT OF THINKING that creates identity.



I agree entirely. I would argue that there has to be a basis, an 'I' in order to learn memes. From my understanding memes are brought into the self through learning from others. We must have the concept of a separated identity in order to learn/mimic the memetic infector. Now, the 'I' in the sense of Who I think of when I think of 'me'... that does seem to be a hash of all the memes I've been infected with... on top of the golden kernel of 'Iness'... maybe?


I liked Cain's paraphrase of some dead philosiphizer... "I think, therefore there is thinking" (my paraphrase). In a pragmatic sense, you might want to separate the act of thinking from any conclusions about the thinker.

That is to say, the act of thinking might be an "I", but to say "I AM" requires what could be considered aquired memes.

Or something.  I'm just winging it here, to be honest.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

  • Probably
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 11430
    • View Profile
Re: No strings attached freedom
« Reply #50 on: December 09, 2008, 05:57:05 pm »
If a meme is like a thought, it must needs thinking in order to exist.

Therefore a structure of thinking must be present.

That creature with a potential for thought is the "I".

Would a human completely isolated from other humans develop a personality?  I say yes.

So, unless the "I AM" meme can spontaneously generate (which, AFAIK runs counter to most meme theory), then it is the ACT OF THINKING that creates identity.



I agree entirely. I would argue that there has to be a basis, an 'I' in order to learn memes. From my understanding memes are brought into the self through learning from others. We must have the concept of a separated identity in order to learn/mimic the memetic infector. Now, the 'I' in the sense of Who I think of when I think of 'me'... that does seem to be a hash of all the memes I've been infected with... on top of the golden kernel of 'Iness'... maybe?


I liked Cain's paraphrase of some dead philosiphizer... "I think, therefore there is thinking" (my paraphrase). In a pragmatic sense, you might want to separate the act of thinking from any conclusions about the thinker.

That is to say, the act of thinking might be an "I", but to say "I AM" requires what could be considered aquired memes.

Or something.  I'm just winging it here, to be honest.

Yes... it seems very fuzzy at that point. I AM the verb exists but I AM the noun is a meme... at some point I wonder where the meme metaphor wears out?

What makes a meme anything more than an idea? If nothing, then all we're claiming is that humans act on their ideas and their self is made up of all the ideas they currently hold. Which suddenly seems kinda obvious.

The real question, then, becomes one of action... are all of my actions controlled by memes, or by the verb I AM (this is kinda interesting because the hebrew name for God YHVH can be translated as the verb I AM)? Does I AM, decide which memes take precedence, or how memes fit together, or are these automatic processes with memes connecting to memes and I AM as a hapless victim as these memes collect on him like bits of metal shavings to a magnet?

If its the former, then perhaps that's where the Freedom Cain's discussing happens... when I AM acts in a way contrary to the memetic entity within him (though Cram's argument seems to indicate such a thing may not be possible). If however, actions are better defined with the latter, then freedom in the sense Cain's discussing, couldn't happen, because we would ALWAYS be acting according to a meme and never really meet the requirement set forth in the OP:

 "Freedom, instead, is the ability to be other than we are.  To have choices, and to be able to make them, freely.  Despite what you are, what you do or what you believe, freedom means having the potential to do something different in the next moment, if you please."

Nor would Camus have been correct to say I revolt therefore we are... since his act of revolt would simply be an expression of a meme and therefore the choice would be neither free nor would we have the potential to act other than this memeplex directed.

But, I also am winging it at this point ;-)
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 62211
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: No strings attached freedom
« Reply #51 on: December 09, 2008, 06:08:55 pm »
Isn't it a main argument against memetics that all memes are merely ideas, and don't really need a new name?

Also, I think there is the "I" which is the noun, the thinking noun, and then the "I AM" which is the labeling of the thinking noun which, of course, is always an incomplete description.

That is to say, there once you add the descriptive verb, you enter the realm ov meme.


...


This is like a retarded debate between Descartes and RAW.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

  • Probably
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 11430
    • View Profile
Re: No strings attached freedom
« Reply #52 on: December 09, 2008, 06:20:36 pm »
PD.com,  a retarded debate between Descartes and RAW.
That should be one of the News Tickers!

 :lulz:

Isn't it a main argument against memetics that all memes are merely ideas, and don't really need a new name?

Also, I think there is the "I" which is the noun, the thinking noun, and then the "I AM" which is the labeling of the thinking noun which, of course, is always an incomplete description.

That is to say, there once you add the descriptive verb, you enter the realm ov meme.

Hrmmm.... that's quite interesting. I think the argument though between 'meme' vs 'idea' may have a lot to do with this question we're discussing, if Free Will exists and we have control over which ideas most directly affect us, then that's one thing... if however, we don't have much say as shrapnel and prison bars come flying at us fast as the speed of thought, then maybe meme is the better term for those kind of ideas?

Of course, this also bring up the invariable question of responsibility. How responsible is anyone for their actions, if actions are driven by memes. Was the guy that sent smallpox infected blankets to the Native Americans a bad guy, or was he a victim of the bad meme, Manifest Destiny?

Did the guy that raped and killed X person do something evil, or was he the victim of a memetic entity that drove him to rape and kill?

If it's all in the memes, then punishment seems like a horrific idea and personal responsibility would seem to be non existent. Of course, if we follow this rabbit hole all the way down, responsibility, evil, good, bad, punishment, etc would all just be memes and not really existent at all. At that point someone needs to hit me over the head with a barstool, because we're heading down a path where the moral relativity of a society defines good and bad, based on the memes it consumes, thus excusing every instance of genocide as merely acts based on what memes appeared most beneficial.

- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 62211
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: No strings attached freedom
« Reply #53 on: December 09, 2008, 06:24:48 pm »
Ok, maybe I have a brutally incomplete understanding of memetics.  Is it a postulate that you have NO CHOICE but to believe/follow a meme you come into contact with?

Or are you allowed to pick and choose and evaluate among the different memes?


Because if it's the former, then the thinking "I" is destroyed, consumed by the "AM".

Manta Obscura

  • Ranked #1 Catholic Atheist by Good Morning, America
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 794
  • There are no spoons in this spork-centric society.
    • View Profile
Re: No strings attached freedom
« Reply #54 on: December 09, 2008, 06:28:49 pm »


This is like a retarded debate between Descartes and RAW.

I've actually been enjoying this since I've taken up lurking on this thread.

Being educated with a Linguistic/Communications background in a religious college, I've gotten used to (collected the meme of?) thinking in the theological terms of "who am I?". I think it was Marcus Borg who said that that is the central question of all religion/ethics/morality (also: "who are we?" for collectivist religions) and the primary mystery of the human person.

The answering of that question outlines the potentiality of a person and how they relate to their world, which is directly tied to the freedom that one has within that world. So I think what you, Rat and Cram have been discussing regarding who this "I" fellow is, is of great importance to the idea of freedom brought up by Cain.

My own mentalscape has me gravitating toward's Rat's perspective, but I don't really have much to contribute, in part because you've all somehow been spying inside my brain to say what I'm thinking before I can write it, and in part because my interior mentalscape tends to swing pendulously from one point of skepticism to another, offering little concrete information to put forth.
Everything I wish for myself, I wish for you also.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

  • Probably
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 11430
    • View Profile
Re: No strings attached freedom
« Reply #55 on: December 09, 2008, 06:44:58 pm »
Ok, maybe I have a brutally incomplete understanding of memetics.  Is it a postulate that you have NO CHOICE but to believe/follow a meme you come into contact with?

Or are you allowed to pick and choose and evaluate among the different memes?
Because if it's the former, then the thinking "I" is destroyed, consumed by the "AM".

That would seem to be the question. From my understanding up to this point, it was a bit of both. That is, some memes may be by choice and some by their evolved tendency to survive within a human host.

Maybe then, what we need to explore... is if there might exist an immune system of sorts to combat these infectious memes.

In Dawkins original use of the word, I think he based it on imitation... Person X would see something/hear something and decide to imitate it. He argued that with many social phenomena it may be extremely virulent and thus humans that come into contact with it appear very likely to become infected.

Perhaps its the memetic immune system that allows for acts for Freedom (ala Cain's OP). That is, when you aren't infected by the meme you come in contact with... when you're exposed to the meme and DON'T accept it as mpart of your memeplex, THEN you're performing an act of AMness as well as an act of Freedom.

Unless of course, you're just infected with a meme that happens to be non-compatible with the new one...

I think the trick will be (over the next decade or so) figuring out when the meme model is a useful tool and when it just confuses the issue. We can model human behavior on a meme model, but at some point, we will need to figure out where we leave off considering the menu and start munching on the cardboard ;-)

Do memes usefully model all human ideas/thoughts or is the model useful in describing 'sombunal' acts of social imitation?



- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 62211
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: No strings attached freedom
« Reply #56 on: December 09, 2008, 07:01:21 pm »
I'm not sure I can buy into memetics 100%.  Or even 75%. 

It might be an occasionally useful metaphor, but I dunno.

But I suppose that's beside the point.

Or maybe that's the whole point.


I think I just derailed this thread due to my lack of understanding regarding memetics.

fomenter

  • don juan myhatass
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 4623
    • View Profile
Re: No strings attached freedom
« Reply #57 on: December 09, 2008, 07:06:18 pm »
feel free to ignore this if this adds a unecisary complication to the discussion.
but what about chimps and other animals? a dominant animal growls and a lower in the pack animal runs off is that growl a meme? is the weaker animals response an I AM that tells him to run? if he learned the body language and growls of the meme would his I AM become the I AM of the pack leader? some memetics may be deep ingrained socializations that transcend ideas  and are made of instinctual communication??
« Last Edit: December 09, 2008, 07:22:11 pm by F.M.E »
"So she says to me, do you wanna be a BAD boy? And I say YEAH baby YEAH! Surf's up space ponies! I'm makin' gravy... Without the lumps. HAAA-ha-ha-ha!"


hmroogp

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 62211
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: No strings attached freedom
« Reply #58 on: December 09, 2008, 07:10:17 pm »
I suppose, from where I'm coming from, that it would depend if Alpha/Beta/Gamma behavior is genetic or not.

I would say no (I still like the 8-curcuit imprinting), which would make the pack behavior as an accumulation of external "I AM" rather than from the "I".




Fuck, I AM making no sense.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

  • Probably
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 11430
    • View Profile
Re: No strings attached freedom
« Reply #59 on: December 09, 2008, 07:19:46 pm »
I'm not sure I can buy into memetics 100%.  Or even 75%. 

It might be an occasionally useful metaphor, but I dunno.

But I suppose that's beside the point.

Or maybe that's the whole point.


I think I just derailed this thread due to my lack of understanding regarding memetics.

I don't think so. I think this has be an awesome thread.

I doubt we've gotten any answers, prolly more questions that anything. Once Cram gets back from his interview, maybe he can respond based on the AM book... I think I'll dig out my Book of Atem tonight and see what I can find  there. It might be interesting to see the memetic model from the "Art" perspective and the "Magic" perspective.

One thing I recall from Atem, was that Phil placed memetics in two categories:

Meme - an idea/concept/belief/gestrue etc
Memetic Entity - A system of beliefs, ideas etc.

So the entity, in his view, is a strong system that is somewhat self sustaining. So "Fnord" would be a meme, "Sink" would be a meme, "Hail Eris, Pentabarf, Eris" etc would all be memes... but "Discordianism" would be a memetic entity.

These entities, then can be accepted by the individual (either consciously or through infectious means)... and are modified by the other memetic entities within. So in his view, its almost memesexual... Discordianism and JWism (plus all the other memetic entities that wander around in my head) have a baby that's some memetic mix of the two, thus creating the unique memetic entity that most directly affects my Self.

In Phil's view one of the key aspects of "magic" is the conscious manipulation and modification of the internal memetic entities. In fact, it seems that he places the "Holy Guardian Angel" concept as the invoked form of the individuals internal memetic entity.

Kinda, based on my recollections from a year ago ;-)
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson