Richard Dawkins Faith In Memes Is As Blind As A Christian's to God

[Scented Nectar]

Paul The Human: if you understand so well, define one single unit of a meme for me...

I'm not Paul, but I'd like to tackle that: An individual idea.

if you understand so well explain to me the difference between a meme and an idea...

Memes are just ideas that have become popular and spread. They ARE ideas.

(if you don't understand so well, ignore my questions, and call me a cunt or something...)

No comment. Cough, cough, no, don't do it SN....

[Cecco]

define an 'individual idea'. get to the route of what you are saying. yours is a lazy and vague description. get to the fundementals. this is science after all, is it not? in which case there is no room for vagueness.

not even the top scientists working on memetics can come to a consensus on the definition, yet you all know! you do realise memetics is theory, not fact?

sn, you say memes are ideas that are popular and have spread... which suggests that unpopular ideas that have not spread far are not memes, correct? this would mean that not all ideas are memes, invalidating your original definition. also, what level of popularity do you believe is required to transform an idea into a meme?

[Scented Nectar]

Oh for fuck's sake. Figure out your own answers Cecco. If you don't want any vagueness, you should ask about only those topics which all humans claim to know absolutely everything about. No one promised you that with memes. Or anything else.

[In This Mind]

Oh for fuck's sake. Figure out your own answers Cecco. If you don't want any vagueness, you should ask about only those topics which all humans claim to know absolutely everything about. No one promised you that with memes. Or anything else.

I am In This Mind, and I approve this message.

Vote Early, Vote Often!

Remember children, only YOU can prevent forest fires

42

[Scented Nectar]

ITM, whatever it is I'm running for, would you like to be my second in command, like vice president or something? I'll be looking for some good people to help me run the world.

Cecco, another thing you should realize, is that only a few of the people here are actually scientists. And out of them, how likely is it that there is going to be an expert in whatever branch of whatever field studies memes (maybe sociology or something)? And even more, you are asking about what one individual meant regarding memes when that individual isn't even here to explain himself.

[Cecco]

huzzah! an admittance that you do not know! a begrudging admittance, sure, but still. thank you SN!

[Scented Nectar]

huzzah! an admittance that you do not know! a begrudging admittance, sure, but still. thank you SN!

I think you must be insane. I never did say I know everything. Nor am I saying I know nothing. I know some things, enough to want to share what I know plus my opinions/ideas here on this thread. What is it you are saying about what I am saying? That I claimed to know everything, some things, or nothing?

[Cecco]

exactly, scented nector. you do not know everything, neither do i, though i have said this all along, that i and we all do not know about memes, because it is a hazy embryonic nonscience at this stage, yet you keep telling me you know. a meme is this! a meme is that! but yes, now we agree, there is no clear definition. that is all i was ever saying.

there is no evidence for memes (they don't need evidence! we think of them, so they exist! just like god) and so, until a cultural unit can be defined, and until there is evidence for them existing, no serious discussion about why humans believe in god can be had that includes a mention of memes. you stated religion is not in our biology. again, there is no evidence for this. religion might be in our biology. until we know these answers, it is ignorant to presume either is correct.

wisdom is knowing what we don't know.

this is not a personal attack on dawkins (much), just on his idea of memetics. the man is brilliant.

[Scented Nectar]

exactly, scented nector. you do not know everything, neither do i, though i have said this all along, that i and we all do not know about memes, because it is a hazy embryonic nonscience at this stage, yet you keep telling me you know. a meme is this! a meme is that! but yes, now we agree, there is no clear definition. that is all i was ever saying.

No we don't agree. The definition is something I do know. If you are having problems still with that very basic part of understanding memes, I suggest you reread the dictionaries and Wiki over and over until it starts to make sense. It will probably be necessary in your case to also look up the words that make up that definition.

there is no evidence for memes (they don't need evidence! we think of them, so they exist! just like god)

1. Are emotions (as a type of thought) real and do they exist? Are memories real (as a type of thought) and do they exist? Yes, right? Good, now here are some more:

2. Are behaviour patterns (eg cereal eating for breakfast) real and do they exist? Are popular ideas (as a type of thought) real and do they exist? Yes. Very good. Here's some more:

3. Are elves (as actual beings, not a concept) real and do they exist? Are deities (as actual beings, not a concept) real and do they exist? No, of course not. If you understand this, great!

The questions in number 2 were examples of memes by the way.

and so, until a cultural unit can be defined, and until there is evidence for them existing, no serious discussion about why humans believe in god can be had that includes a mention of memes. you stated religion is not in our biology.

That is totally ridiculous. How do you connect such apples with oranges and a zillion other things?

again, there is no evidence for this. religion might be in our biology. until we know these answers, it is ignorant to presume either is correct.

Where are you going with this? Are you trying to say you think these alleged religion genes are proof of religions being true? You seem to really want to believe that it might be genetic. Defensive even.

wisdom is knowing what we don't know.

Don't assume you are wise yet. Not even wise enough to be tossing this phrase around at others.

this is not a personal attack on dawkins (much), just on his idea of memetics. the man is brilliant.

Seems a bit like you have a hate-on for the guy, but whatever. Maybe holding a grudge about his forum closing.

[Cecco]

The definition is something I do know.

we've been over this. you do not know.

Are emotions (as a type of thought) real and do they exist? Are memories real (as a type of thought) and do they exist? Yes, right?

yes, of course they exist, but thoughts and memories are not scientifically quantifiable yet. memetics portends they are, but this has not been proven.

Are you trying to say you think these alleged religion genes are proof of religions being true?

nope. absolutely not.

Seems a bit like you have a hate-on for the guy, but whatever. Maybe holding a grudge about his forum closing.

i called him brilliant and i criticised one of his many ideas. this means i have a hate-on? disagreeing with one thing equals hate to you?

do you not have any criticisms of richard dawkins? not one? if not then it follows that you are a lamb of dawkins.