Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA02827 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 2 Feb 2000 09:12:56 GMT Message-Id: <200002020911.EAA08753@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 03:14:45 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #119 In-reply-to: <00020205451700.00437@faichney> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk>
Organization: Reborn Technology
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #119
Date sent: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 05:35:23 +0000
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> >> On Tue, 01 Feb 2000, VANWYHE@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >I think it is a waste of time to endlessly debate genes vs memes. I don't
> >> >give a toss about memes- the idea strikes me as totally presumptuous.
> >>
> >> How much reading on it have you done?
> >>
> >This strikes me as a strange question, Robin, especially coming
> >from you. Your problem is reductionism; you are trying to reduce
> >semantics (the relations between the sign and the signified - the
> >things), pragmatics (the relations between the sign and the signifier
> >- us), and syntactics (the relations between signs in a sign
> >system), the three divisions of semiotics (the realm of meaning) to
> >physics and chemistry (the realm of being), and when you atomize
> >things, you lose the emergent qualities which arise form complex
> >and dynamic interrelation.
>
> I clearly differentiate between physical and intentional information, and have
> said almost nothing about the latter. How you think you know my views
> in that area puzzles me greatly. Regarding reductionism in general, I have
> always been strongly anti. You should address what I say, not what you think
> I'd say.
>
What is passed via memes is signification - meaning - of which
behavior is only the outward token. Cognitivism destroyed the
behaviorist position, which reduced the cerebrum to a mere relay
switch between input and output, eons ago. Meanings arise from
primordial experience (conceptions are rooted in perceptions, I.
Kant said), so ultimately, the theoretical derivation of memetics as
a science will have to confront the same hard problem which
confronts those trying to understand mind itself (as well as its
emergence from its physical substrate, the brain) - the cognitive
status of the experienced qualia upon which our meanings depend,
and the entire existential subjective-objective quandary, with
phenomenological intersubjectivity (transmission) and
hermeneutics (interpretation) requiring attention and integration as
well. Take heart; if'n it wuz easy, it woulda already been done (but
as you might be able to grok by now, I'm well on my way to doing it
- I'm just keeping it close to my vest, 'cause I wanna make a buck
when I publish).
> --
> Robin Faichney
>
>
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 02 2000 - 09:12:57 GMT