Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA17540 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 8 Feb 2000 14:04:46 GMT From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> Organization: Reborn Technology To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #119 Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 13:56:41 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200002032055.PAA06683@mail1.lig.bellsouth.net> Message-Id: <00020515543103.00380@faichney> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Thu, 03 Feb 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
>[Robin wrote]
>> How many times do I have to repeat, I distinguish between physical and
>> intentional information, and claim that memes are composed of the former, WHILE
>> SAYING NOTHING ABOUT THE LATTER?
>>
>If you do not take meaning (and those who mean - us) into
>account, your attempt is bound to fail to categorize that which it
>intends to categorize. Memes cannot exist in a meaning-vacuum,
>and neither can an ontology of them.
There's certainly a requirement for meaning, but its in the meta-system within
which we're discussing the foundations of memetics, not in the latter.
>> In fact, I am very interested in the relationships between meaning, information
>> and causality, it's just that I don't believe that meaning has a place in the
>> foundations of memetics. I'll shout again, in case that helps you "grok" this:
>> THAT DOES NOT MEAN I DON'T "BELIEVE IN" MEANING!
>>
>It does mean that you're wrong about meaning having no place in
>the foundation of memetics. Do you even know what the word
>"meme" means? Just as genetic characteristics are enGENdered
>(replicated) through sexual reproduction, memes are reMEMbered
>(lodged in the MEMory) by means of communicative replication
>between intentionalities.
Again I have to ask, sez who? If this was established, you'd obviously be
able to cite copious support. So why don't you?
(In case it's not obvious, the point with which I disagree is that
intentionalities are necessarily involved. I know of no reason to believe
that, and in fact, off hand, can't think of any argument that's ever been made
for it. Though I haven't yet read every article in the JoM archives.)
BTW, someone should probably tell you, on this list such issues have been
discussed at great length for years without much sign of a concensus being
reached. You seem to be using a concept of the meme -- meme AS concept,
in fact -- that's common elsewhere, such as on the virus list, but has little
support among those with a serious interest in the subject. Maybe you should
do some reading of the JoM, and reconsider the status of your knowledge of
memetics.
>I have yet to run up against anything
>which is replicated by intentionalities that has no meaning
>whatsoever. Now why don't you give me a counterexample of a
>meaningless meme, or one which does not involve intentional
>beings?
All *any* meme requires is a set of communicating systems each of which is
capable of imitating the behaviour of its peers. A network of ordinary PC's
would very easily suffice, if they were programmed appropriately. Or, of
course, a network could be simulated on one machine.
Hmm, there's a thought... :-)
-- 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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 08 2000 - 14:05:19 GMT