Re: PHIL: Memes & Free Will?

Hara Ra (
Sun, 08 Mar 1998 09:24:31 -0800

Christopher Fedeli wrote:
> >As Gurdjieff pointed-out, most individuals fail to be individuals.
> My question is this - which individuals do not fail to be individuals? It
> seems that all of us, populace and cognoscenti alike, are subject to the same
> set of principles that govern our attitudes, beliefs and behaviors.

> In either case, I have exercised no more choice in the matter than that
> of any borg drone.
> My point - we can not exercise control over which memes take to our mind.

Danger Alert - Level Conflict Ahead!

Though my mind confabulates an "I", this is always relative to
the current data set on hand. This "I" then is seen as the agency
which makes decisions about lower level memes. This happens all
of the time, such as when I hit the Del key in response to spam.

Higher up the tree (structure? neural net? god? - pick your
metaphor or metameme) the "Higher I" sees all of this is just
machinery turning its cogs. Of course to the current "I" any
"Higher I"'s motives are on the other side of my personal
Singularity anyway (Ie, "Higher I"s are Powers, etc re Vinge)

Perhaps mystical experience is a kind of toroidal tail chasing,
where top suddenly becomes bottom. course with a few half twists
in there it becomes positively Moebic... (If you don't get this
paragraph, chant Om Mani Padme Meme some Aleph-Null times and
call me in the morning)

> To take a famous example, Richard Dawkins argues that humans can "rebel
> against the tyranny of the selfish replicators." He gives the example that
> every time we use contraception, we are rebelling against the tyranny of genes
> who want us to procreate. But who is really rebelling in this example?

Think of a tree full of monkeys, each labeled "I", throwing
rotten fruit at those lower in the tree (and dat's not the only
stuff monkeys throw...)

So much for "I-er archial" thinking...
))))))) SPLAT !! ((((((((

| Hara Ra <> |
| Box 8334 Santa Cruz, CA 95061 |