>David McFadzean
List, #5 above is the same as #3 proposed ( We are capable of selecting
memes we let control what we do..."). So is this variation: "At some level
we can manipulate memes and predict an effect"; which is to say that we can
use scientific method to "prove" #1 (Memes exist...).
I say that #2 is the most controversial. On the surface it contradicts with
no's 1&3...If they control us, how is it that we can control them? The
statement should read they do "something". The "something" which they do
will also refer back to #1...they well be operationally defined to exist
*as* something.
Therefore we have:
1. Memes are: "That which produces a more evolved form through the process
of dichotomy and saltation: The form produced which is a complex
arrangement (of information) crystallized within a shell, or
"carrier"--carrier being a viable form of the meme in that the arrangement
of said form is still subject to change (through replication)." (Date:
Sat, 13 Sep 1997 18:49:40 -0500,To: virus@lucifer.com, From: Brett Lane
Robertson, <unameit@tctc.com>, Subject: RE: virus: Existence and Ego)
2. We can show this experimentally.
Brett
At 11:04 AM 9/20/97 -0600, you wrote:
>At 06:28 PM 9/19/97 -0700, Tadeusz Niwinski wrote:
>>A question to all concerned with memetical experiments: Do we have axioms
>>and if so, what do you think of the 3 axioms I have suggested:
>>> (1) Memes exist.
>>> (2) Memes control what we do.
>>> (3) We are capable of selecting memes we let control what we do.
>>#(3) seems to be the most controversial.
>I would like to suggest another:
>(1a) We are our memes.
>So from (1a) and (2):
>(4) We control what we do.
>>From (1a) and (3)
>(5) Our memes are capable of selecting memes we let control what we do.
>David McFadzean
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Vital papers will demonstrate their vitality by
spontaneously moving from where you left them to where you
can't find them.