virus: Re: 'memes' vs. 'things'

RIGHTSBOY@aol.com
Sun, 24 Jan 1999 22:13:00 EST

From:	RIGHTSBOY
To:	memetics@mmu.ac.uk

In response to my 'e-reaction protocols' post, Mark asked:
>In the context of your post, what is an 'instinct'?

In return I would ask you, what 'is' a "concept"?

But, my 'answer' to your question also encompasses my reaction to the "is a meme, or a gene, a 'thing'?" question. Bringing the mighty resources of my limited 'hobbyist' self-education to bear, I submit that what we reference with our language as 'things' cannot be more than aspects of our sensory
'experience', which is (apparently) our nervous system's _reaction(s)_ to
('abstractions' from, in GS terms) external environmental physical impingements upon its 'mechanical' structure, i.e. stimuli.

I submit that a system's interaction with its physical environment depends upon the structural configuration of the system, e.g. that of the human body- ous system, as well as that of its physical environment. I assume at this time (based on the reported scientific findings I am familiar with) that
'instincts' are very basic 'hard-wired' configurations of an organism's
nervous system (or its "experiential reaction neurocircuitry configuration"/ERNC) which emerge from its particular genetic 'blueprint', i.e. that it is "born with". I also propose, however, that evolution has endowed the human nervous system with a relatively highly developed ability to configure its own ERNC to a considerable (but not unlimitted) degree via its ability to 'imagine', or in your words, 'conceptualize' future experiential sequences based on the 'replay' and associative 'cross-referencing' of
'memorized' experience-reaction sequences. I suggest that an 'incidental'
capability of this faculty has proved to be our ability to 'experientially simulate' (or 'imagine') "abstract ideas" which may be multi-level abstractions from the original sensory experiences, i.e. 'abstractions' from our 'abstractions', etc....

As far as 'memes' and 'things' go, which aspects of our experience we choose to refer to as 'things' is our decision. I subscribe, at this time, to the
'process' view of the universe, that it is a configuration of 'pure process'/
'motion' (or as Mr. Spock or A.E. might say, "pure energy"). I do not
subscribe to the Cartesian "mind vs. matter" (i.e. 'spiritual realm' vs.
'realm of little, hard, irreducible beads called atoms') model. I expect us
to find what we call 'consciousness' to be an 'energy pattern' which is
'emergent' from the combined and 'self-organized' activities of specific
physical configurations of myriad 'atoms'/'molecules'/'cells' in reaction to external physical environmental interactions with their combined structure, and which they, in turn, interact with, as a constituent of. 'Memes', as well as 'genes', are 'simply' sub-patterns in this overall 'pattern-making- pattern'-interaction _process_.

Chris Turner 1-25-98