totalitarian architecture, they will destroy Mecca!

[GuyGadebois]

Once again, it is YOU who says it and of YOU I know nothing. There are critics who seem relevant to me and who come from people as credible as Richard Dawkins.
And if it was as well supported as the theories of Stephen Hawking, it would be, but there is that slab apart from the dithyrambs which come from the marketing movement, therefore more than doubtful.
Ps: I have searched much more than 10 minutes and elsewhere than on Wikipedia. Sources, YOU, you never gave, giving the impression that you took this more than doubtful theory for cash.

[sen-no-sen]

Once again, it is YOU who says it and of YOU I know nothing. There are critics who seem relevant to me and who come from people as credible as Richard Dawkins.
And if it was as well supported as the theories of Stephen Hawking, it would be, but there is that slab apart from the dithyrambs which come from the marketing movement, therefore more than doubtful.
Ps: I have searched much more than 10 minutes and elsewhere than on Wikipedia. Sources, YOU, you never gave, giving the impression that you took this more than doubtful theory for cash.

Yes 15min!

We are not talking here about a hypothetical particle or UFOs, we are talking about ideological complexes, do you have to tell me how this notion would be pseudo-scientific?
All I notice is that you only criticize the form rather than the substance, it is apparently the use of too complicated terms which seems tired certain (2 people) on the forum.We are therefore condemned to express ourselves via basic terms, avoiding any analysis that could disturb the psych .. sorry the gamberge of certain.
Jute a question:
How did you learn to speak French? A) By imitation.
B) ex nihilo.
If you answer B and don't worry, explain otherwise!

[GuyGadebois]

It's not mimicry, it's learning, a progressive structuring of the mind. The wild children were never able to imitate, it was too late, they never spoke and died young. So yes, you have the words, the semantics, the form, but basically what you say is empty. Or say it differently so that everyone can realize that from the bottom there is (if there is any). Because smoking is good in an interpersonal area to which we do not have access.

Ps: It is not because only two people you (Ahmed and you) pointed out that you are completely incomprehensible, that others who are silent do not think less.

[Ahmed]

Wouldn't learning be mimicry, in your opinion? What would it be then?
I do not see anything particularly difficult in this concept and do not understand this curious psychological block ...

[GuyGadebois]

Wouldn't learning be mimicry, in your opinion? What would it be then?
I do not see anything particularly difficult in this concept and do not understand this curious psychological block ...

It is much more complex, otherwise we would only be parrots or mainates.

[Ahmed]

You're absolutely right, learning or mimicry are complex things, but why is this problematic?
(That said, without prejudging the intellectual capacities of the aforementioned birds).

[sicetaitsimple]

..... it is apparently the use of too complicated terms which seems tired certain (2 people) on the forum.We are therefore condemned to express ourselves via basic terms, avoiding any analysis that could disturb the psych .. sorry the gamberge of certain.

Ah, I have the impression that people are talking about me .... Good evening.

gotlib.jpg (15.26 KIO) Viewed 2210 times

[sen-no-sen]

It's not mimicry, it's learning, a progressive structuring of the mind.

"Progressive structuring of the mind"! Can't you express yourself in a simple and audible vocabulary for everyone?

No joke, its terms don't come from my delusional brain but from people as bright as R. Dawkins, S. Blackmore or D. Denett, and these are still very simple concepts, there are worse!
But anyway when it comes to new concepts there is systematically people to complain and much more often on the form than on the substance ...

Wild children have never could imitate, it was too late they never spoke and died young.

All that emerges from children who have had little social contact is that their cognitive capacities were reduced due to the decline in cerebral plasticity (case study of Oxana Malaya).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxana_Malaya

How does this challenge the notion of imitation?

[GuyGadebois]

How does this challenge the notion of imitation?

Because these cases prove that it depends on the context, on the age, on the "biotope" (roughly it is multifactorial) and that when one searches, it is not the only notion to take into account when one considers the survival, evolution and socialization of a human being.
More trivially, if we speak three or four languages ​​in the presence of a newborn baby, in equal parts, indifferently (namely that the four languages ​​are spoken by the four adults alternately), the result will not be that the child will make sentences containing all four languages, but that he will actually speak all four correctly, in a differentiated manner. Your memetics thing is just a very small aspect of things and almost the obvious, since a child is not viable at birth and has to be subjected to "models", models that he will imitate to some extent, but no more, otherwise we would all be clones.
Ps: Watch out for your confusion between "er" and "é". It is often symptomatic of mental confusion.

[GuyGadebois]

You're absolutely right, learning or mimicry are complex things, but why is this problematic?
(That said, without prejudging the intellectual capacities of the aforementioned birds).

This is problematic in the sense that you use memetics as a kind of sesame, while it only illustrates one (most often explained as being material: electrical energy, transmission of information in the brain ) multiple factors that make us "accomplished" humans and not robots or parrots (which indeed have an above average intelligence, like some corvids). I will add that your systematic recourse to your (miraculous!) Sesame does not in any way improve things because it is as if with the back of my hand I was sweeping away the problems inherent in the state of love by defining it by " a hormonal surge ", without going any further.