Daily reminder: not beating your partner is "controversial"

[Cain]

<- My reaction, upon reading the thread I started.

Also, "commit acts of terrorism, and microwave metal" is now a meme.  Upon reading this, you will commit acts of terrorism, and microwave metal.  Why?  Because meme is a magic word that makes you do what I want.

[LMNO]

I just put a terrorist in a microwave.  Am I doing it right?





Also, for the slow ones:


WHAT YOU CALL "MEMETICS" IS JUST ANOTHER MODEL TRYING TO DESCRIBE HOW THE BRAIN WORKS.  IT'S JUST AS INNACURATE IN ITS DESCRIPTION AS ANY OTHER MODEL.  IN FACT, MEMETICS IS EVEN LESS ACCURATE THAN MANY MODELS, BECAUSE NO ONE HAS FOUND A WAY TO SEPARATE A "MEME" FROM "A COMMON IDEA PEOPLE SHARE."

[AFK]

Ooh, forks make sparks. 

[Captain Utopia]

Also, for the slow ones:


WHAT YOU CALL "MEMETICS" IS JUST ANOTHER MODEL TRYING TO DESCRIBE HOW THE BRAIN WORKS.  IT'S JUST AS INNACURATE IN ITS DESCRIPTION AS ANY OTHER MODEL.  IN FACT, MEMETICS IS EVEN LESS ACCURATE THAN MANY MODELS, BECAUSE NO ONE HAS FOUND A WAY TO SEPARATE A "MEME" FROM "A COMMON IDEA PEOPLE SHARE."

Really? I always thought that memetics tried to describe how ideas replicated and what factors contributed to their fitness. The brain is considered a black box for all of this. If you've seen anyone try to use memetics to model how the brain works then I strongly expect that they're doing it completely wrong.

I'm not sure why separating "meme" from "a common idea people share" would be useful. For example, "gene" doesn't need to be separated from "common genetic sequences which people share" to have some utility.

[LMNO]

I can show you a gene; can you show me a meme?

[Cainad (dec.)]

But if I have a memebomb, and a reasonable suspicion that it may do more harm than good

I have the impression that many of us here have a different idea of what a reasonable suspicion is, as regards the matter at hand.

Most likely.

I thought for a while there was a danger that this might be turned into an active memebomb, but without that risk, my interest in arguing this quickly vanishes.

I'm going to activate the fuck out of this memebomb.

I thought for a while there was a danger that this might be turned into an active memebomb, but without that risk, my interest in arguing this quickly vanishes.

http://principiadiscordia.com/memebombs/?action=show&id=4010

[Captain Utopia]

I can show you a gene; can you show me a meme?

It's funny you should state that so stridently, since the definition of what a gene actually is, has undergone a continual evolution of its own.

But anyway.

I cannot show you an idea. I cannot show you emergence. Thus I cannot show you the results of an idea and emergence combined.

I'll grant that there isn't much of a science to prod and poke and test against yet - the nearest we have are the advertising/PR industries - it's entirely possible that they study memes and propagation strategies (or in their terminology, an ideavirus) and the success they find is an unrelated correlation. I just don't think that's very probable.

[Kai]

Have you read The Selfish Gene? If you haven't, you should go read it. You need to first understand where the hell the word it is you're using comes from so you stop using it haphazardly all over the place.

[Triple Zero]

I thought for a while there was a danger that this might be turned into an active memebomb, but without that risk, my interest in arguing this quickly vanishes.

http://principiadiscordia.com/memebombs/?action=show&id=4010

[LMNO]

I'm engaging in mild hyperbole to make a point.

The meme-omancers made an analogy that memes were like viruses.  Unfortunately, people started running with that metaphor as if it were actual fact.  But the implications of this literalization means that there "are" tiny little ideas floating around, independent of humans, but needing them as hosts to breed more of themselves; that they "infect" their "hosts."

And that the host is essentially blameless for catching and spreading these ideas.



That last sentence is what I'm getting from your strenuous objections to the 11/12 - 2/3 memebomb; that people will see it, and be attacked by a vicious idea that will wrestle their consciousness and morals to the ground, and force them to act, slapping wives, girlfriends, sisters and mothers.  And then, when captured, they will say the meme out loud, and all in range will suddenly kick their grandmothers in the uterus.

But they're ultimately blameless -- the memebomb made them do it.




Incidentally, this is also why I find the ending of Poker Without Cards ridiculous.

[Captain Utopia]

Have you read The Selfish Gene? If you haven't, you should go read it. You need to first understand where the hell the word it is you're using comes from so you stop using it haphazardly all over the place.

Yes I have. In the twelve years that have passed since then I've casually, but frequently, observed how they operate within myself and externally. I read it in parallel with this, which provides an excellent grounding in emergence.

These two concepts have been central to my thought processes since then, and combining them together adds an extra dimension to the analysis of "memes".

Now you say I'm using the word haphazardly, but you haven't explained how you think I am misusing it.

[Captain Utopia]

I'm engaging in mild hyperbole to make a point.

The meme-omancers made an analogy that memes were like viruses.  Unfortunately, people started running with that metaphor as if it were actual fact.  But the implications of this literalization means that there "are" tiny little ideas floating around, independent of humans, but needing them as hosts to breed more of themselves; that they "infect" their "hosts."

And that the host is essentially blameless for catching and spreading these ideas.

To me it's a little like saying that since LEGO blocks can be stuck together, then I'm just going to stick them in a box, and shake them around and expect a completed model to emerge.

That last sentence is what I'm getting from your strenuous objections to the 11/12 - 2/3 memebomb; that people will see it, and be attacked by a vicious idea that will wrestle their consciousness and morals to the ground, and force them to act, slapping wives, girlfriends, sisters and mothers.  And then, when captured, they will say the meme out loud, and all in range will suddenly kick their grandmothers in the uterus.

But they're ultimately blameless -- the memebomb made them do it.

I think you might have been paying more attention to the strenuous mockery, and strawman construction, than to the words I actually wrote.

Incidentally, this is also why I find the ending of Poker Without Cards ridiculous.

I'll have to take your word on that one. Reading Ben Mack/Love in that thread made me absolutely thankful that I didn't read any of his work.

[Kai]

No. Just no. Please do not start using Emergence poorly as well.

You're using a term ambiguously, making it a muddled mess, and no longer a term. The word is so overused in your speech it's near impossible to know what you're even talking about anymore. Much like when I say a word over and over and over out loud and it ends up sounding like gibberish.

[LMNO]

Ah, forget it. 



Guess who's getting put on "ignore"?

[Captain Utopia]

No. Just no. Please do not start using Emergence poorly as well.

I've been using it for over a decade, so I'm not 'starting' anything.

You're using a term ambiguously, making it a muddled mess, and no longer a term. The word is so overused in your speech it's near impossible to know what you're even talking about anymore. Much like when I say a word over and over and over out loud and it ends up sounding like gibberish.

Then help me out - where am I using it in a confusing manner? If it's "so overused" in my speech, it should be easy to find an example in my post list.

You don't have to help me of course, but if my use is causing such anguish, then that would seem to be the logical solution.