[extropy-chat] SEX! (Re: Martine Rothblatt and bemes)

[pjmanney]

Anders said:
>I liked the presentation a lot, and it was indeed the most visionary one.
>But I have a problem with the bemes concept which is actually kind of sex
>related: are bemes really replicators like genes or memes? Already memes
>are problematic as replicators since they are hard to delineate from
>surrounding cognitive structures, and bemes seem even harder to
>distinguish from other "being-like" things. Units of beingness is a great
>idea, but I'm not sure how to treat them. I think the concept would
>probably benefit by having a few analytic philosophers pick it apart and
>polish it.

I am the farthest thing from a philosopher that I can imagine, but I agree.  I had an instinctual feeling that the metaphor behind "beme" was not really accurate from a 'reproductive' sense, but I don't trust my own opinions on philosophical subjects.  My mind isn't wired that way.  This is why I wanted to throw the idea into the pot, especially given the prexisting identity debate and our own armchair philosophy squad.  There is something wonderful about bemes, and discussion-worthy, and yet it isn't quite right.

Thank you, Anders!

Anybody else want to give it a crack?

PJ