Dan Dennett: Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

There are a lot of germs in that room.

A meme is philosophical fabrication. Nothing more and if one carefully examines the idea it is nihilistic.

jursamaj - This is my last point to you. Don't you go on and on here or elsewhere about evidence as if evidence in itself speaks for itself. The last 150 years are evidence that culture is a profound mystery for evolutionary theory.

I've done the reading and that has formed my understanding of it. For you to then brush that off as an 'opinion' tells me more about your inability to take on board that when it comes to culture you are light on the reading.

One rule for you......one rule for you

"This is my last point to you."

Thank goodness.

jursamaj - You're not going to answer the point about fidelity then?

The (provisional) truth hurts. I feel your pain.

I'd try and make sure I knew a little more about what I was talking about in future before commenting. Just because Richard has told you that science and religion are incompatible doesn't mean that believers in God can't have a science mind.

If that's difficult for you to grasp, that's something for you to deal with.

I would watch those knee-jerk replies in future.

Fidelity?

There *was* a point about fidelity? You used the word 5 times, but you didn't actually *say* anything about it.

Ah, "science mind", is that what you call it. I was beginning to think you had a program that spews out a bunch of semi-grammatical scientific terms, and post until people just give up.

Just as I have given up on *you*.

jursamaj - No this is the way I always speak, but I take the compliment.

Fidelity (as you don't seem to know) is something that Dawkins urges caution on. I had to mention it 5 times because you must have failed to respond at least four times, and now I see why.

Genes retain immortal information, a name Dawkins wrote in his 30th Anniversary to The Selfish Gene could have been an alternative name for that book.

If you don't know about fidelity there's no point in you giving your opinion on it.

No, your mentioning it 5 times was 4 times in 1 post & once in another a few minutes later.

I never asked you about it, other than what your point was. But that's all you did was ask "What about fidelity?" That's not actually asking anything. Had you actually asked anything, I might have answered.

And what's this "the big I am" stuff? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, let alone what comment you're referring to.

Go ahead & rant on some more & claim to have "won". [blocked]

jursamaj - You came in 'the big I am' with a post several pages back, on a video about memetics and yet you have to ask me about fidelity.

That would be an example of not doing the reading, not being familiar with the subject matter and yet for some reason you feel qualified to counter on something it appears you have a superficial understanding of.

Your inability to respond to almost all of my points quite apart from fidelity seems clearer now.

Happy knee-jerking.

jurasamaj - That was a rather long winded way of saying that you don't know about the importance of fidelity when critically thinking through memetics.

Your understanding is a superficial as this approach to culture is, so you are well suited.

You've blocked me, now that you've been found out you've ran off into the long grass. You girly.

I'll keep an eye out for you to make sure you're not going on and on about evidence and science when you don't adhere to it yourself.

Once again, girly.