The fact that a change is reversible does not make it not real.
The fact that the final value system can be modeled as a starting value system modified by “memetic infection” does not make the final value system invalid. They are two different but equivalent ways of modelling the state.
Right. The point is that—under the “infection” analogy—people’s “ultimate” values change a lot less. How much they change depends on the strength of people’s memetic immune system—and there are some people with strong memetic immune systems whose values don’t change much at all.
The fact that a change is reversible does not make it not real.
The fact that the final value system can be modeled as a starting value system modified by “memetic infection” does not make the final value system invalid. They are two different but equivalent ways of modelling the state.
Right. The point is that—under the “infection” analogy—people’s “ultimate” values change a lot less. How much they change depends on the strength of people’s memetic immune system—and there are some people with strong memetic immune systems whose values don’t change much at all.
I’m not sure I follow you.
Are you saying that some agents change their values less often than others (or equivalently, are less likely to acquire “infections”)?