re: #633 Salamantis

You should read JJ Gibson on perceptual affordances. We’re not talking about dosed observers here, and illusions are mistakes of interpretatiopn, not perception, which doesn’t fly when we’re talking about whether or not the fucking moon is shining in a clear night sky; sheesh! Hint: you can’t grasp absent straws.

No, we are talking about whether the perception of a real thing is meaningfully different from a purely subjective experience. You keep talking like it isn’t, I keep saying “In any empirical science, it sure is: the former can be approached through multiple independant objective means, the latter only by introspection. Given that memic processes are for postulated to reflect an aspect of empirical reality one would think it was germane.

Better understanding. What has NOT been previously understood about all those things is that they are tokens of a single type, and follow the same rules. And there will certainly be more. The discipline is young yet. What did we have out of evolution by 1889?

Not really: you are simply asserting that they ARE all tokens of a simple type. You haven’t demonstrated it, largely because the unit under examination (the meme) is not clearly unitary, using your own example. You can’t even tell the difference between a meme and a non meme in this very discussion except by blurting out of thin air a fantasy of Bushman erections.

It did indeed allow for the distinction between memes and non-memes (meaning), and as far as memes and memeplexes go, I have Beethovened you to death over 4 separable notes. No one but you and a creationist shill with ulterior motives will contend that example.

Uh, no: I pointed out that the content of those “4 notes” was variable between individuals, which kinda puts to rest the idea that tis is a causally efficaceous unit. When I pointed that out, you just said “Well, you have a different meme!”, which is the same as saying “those 4 notes are at least two different memes in two different people, so how do you know that you have even ONE meaningful unit? Answer: Well, it just seems so. Einstein! Darwin! Galileo! Memic evolution! My cat has kittens! silliness is what it is.

You think that there was something in this:That’s because you are synthetically myopic. You, for some bizarre reason, cannot figure out what value it is to unite various phenomena under a common rubric. Like biology and botany under genetics. Or relativity and quantum mechanics under a GUTOE. to respond too? Well, since you asked: it isn’t very clever. I can see all kinds of advantages if the synthesis is meaningful. But that “meaningful” thing is what you have a hard time with. You keep saying “Mimetics isn’t Science” and I keep agreeing, but when I ask “Of what use” you cite scientific syntheses. so you have a bit of a problem there, too. Finally, biology and botany aren’t united under genetics: botany is a subfield of biology; it is united with zoology under biology. satisfied? I can hack limbs off you all day long if you want.