> What's your objective with this continuing discussion?

As I stated: "I think it is useful (or at least interesting) to learn more about the nature/behaviors of intelligent people who do not have conflicting values or goals with me, or even conflicting abstract beliefs ("I would say reducing the amount of delusional beliefs held by individuals is extremely, urgently important"), yet who seem determined to seek ways to fail."

Perhaps "find ways to misunderstand the question being asked or shift the subject" would have been more appropriate than "fail".

(When reading this, please keep in mind I fully acknowledge your above words regarding the validity of the term "abstract beliefs" in this sentence. I hope you can overlook this and accept that I am simply restating this prior statement exactly as initially written, with full admission that it may fall short of absolutely perfect accuracy in choice of terms.

See also:

https://lifehacker.com/utilize-the-steel-man-tactic-to-argue...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19901735 "I'm curious why you think a transition to a more enlightened..."

)

> Are you hoping to convince me to take a specific action or something?

Yes, answer the questions as written, or acknowledge that you choose not to (rather than leading the conversation off onto a tangent).

> Wikipedia describes Memetics as "the study of information and culture based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution". A body of study is not an abstract concept.

Speaking of pedantry....do you think the core idea or intent of this discussion from my perspective is the precise definition of the word "memetics"? Are you familiar with the meaning of the phrase "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"?"

I have clearly said multiple times that my interest is related to the potential utility of a widespread, true understanding of the ideas discussed within memetics - whether it could make a difference in the world.

> My objective with my original comment was to counter your claim that Memetics was high impact.

And I have clearly addressed the poor choice of words in my initial statement, at least twice:

- "I don't disagree with your assertion that ~"multiple people have recognized and described this phenomenon within human psychology and assigned it a variety of labels", or that there has so far been little noteworthy impact. My interest is about the potential of this knowledge."

- "Hmmmm....on one hand this seems like all a silly misunderstanding, basically a pedantic difference of "impactful" vs "potentially impactful"."

The conversation clearly moved on beyond that: "I'm in full agreement with the quoted paragraph. And I would say reducing the amount of delusional beliefs held by individuals is extremely, urgently important"

....and yet, you have once again pivoted back to whether Memetics is high impact, after already acknowledging you believe the ideas contained within are "extremely, urgently important".

> I consider the objective moot now, since it's become apparent you're using "Memetics" in a nonstandard sense, and the rest of the audience is long gone.

I'm not here to win points, I'm here to have a conversation and gain a deeper understanding of human nature (in this case, why people behave evasively in conversations).

> Trying to rid yourself of ignorance by your own willpower is futile. There is no solid ground to stand on, because everything is ignorance. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Dawkins and his type are priests of a religion based on trying to rid oneself of ignorance by one's own willpower. This will never work, and you'll always be miserable. Jesus said: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." You will never come to the ultimate truth via your own intellectual exercises. It's as futile as trying to write a dictionary with no circular definitions.

This all sounds a bit like those vague but persuasive/useful memes we were talking about earlier. A tangential one at that! ;)