Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA18973 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 9 Feb 2000 02:07:47 GMT Message-Id: <200002090202.VAA24320@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 20:06:12 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #119 In-reply-to: <00020515543103.00380@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: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 13:56:41 +0000
Send 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.
>
What is it do you think that memes communicate, anyway, if not
meaning? Exactly what could be at the same time meaningless
and yet influence people to adopt a particular type of behavior
conducive to the further transmission of the meaninglessness?
>
> >> 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?
>
Sez phenomenology, hermeneutics, structuralism, semiotics,
genetic epistemology and a few other fields (IMAGINING and
REMEMBERING, two books by Edward S. Casey, THE
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION by Edward G. Ballard,
UNDERSTANDING AND EXPLANATION by Karl-Otto Apel,
SPEAKING AND MEANING by James Edie, KNOWLEDGE AND
THE FLOW OF INFORMATION by Fred Dretske, ELEMENTS OF
ANTHROPOSEMIOSIS: THE HUMAN USE OF SIGNS by John
Deely, PSYCHOSEMANTICS, A THEORY OF CONTENT AND
OTHER ESSAYS, CONCEPTS, THE LANGUAGE OF THOUGHT,
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS and REPRESENTATIONS, all
by Jerry A. Fodor, STRUCTURAL SEMIOTICS and ON MEANING,
both by A. J. Greimas, PROLEGOMENA TO A THEORY OF
LANGUAGE and LANGUAGE: AN INTRODUCTION, both by Louis
Hjelmslev, FOUNDATIONS OF THE THEORY OF SIGNS,
SIGNIFICATION AND SIGNIFICANCE and SIGNS, LANGUAGE
AND BEHAVIOR, all by Charles Morris, THE SEMIOTIC SELF by
Norbert Wiley, THE EXPLANATION OF BEHAVIOR by Charles
Taylor, STRUCTURALISM, THE EQUILIBRATION OF COGNITIVE
STRUCTURES, ADAPTATION AND INTELLIGENCE, BIOLOGY
AND KNOWLEDGE, PSYCHOLOGY AND EPISTEMOLOGY, and
THE PRINCIPLES OF GENETIC EPISTEMOLOGY, all by Jean
Piaget, CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE PLAT OF SIGNS BY Robert
Innis, PHENOMENOLOGY OF COMMUNICATION by Richard
Lanigan, CONVERSTION ANALYSYS by George Psathas,
PHENOMENOLOGY OF WILLING AND MOTIVATION by
Alexander Pfander, COMMUNICATIVE PRAXIS AND THE SPACE
OF SUBJECTIVITY by Calvin Schrag, INTERPRETATION THEORY
and FROM TEXT TO ACTION, both by Paul Ricoeur,
REPRESENTATION AND REALITY by Hilary Putnam, and
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF SIGNS by Thomas
Sebeok, just to cherry-pick a few of the references I am using in
my own work). Who do YOU quote in support of YOUR
misconceptions, as long as you are requesting the 2500-year-old
greek fallacy known as Appeal to Authority? There are only a few
books on memetics out there, and at least one of the authors
(Richard Brodie) seems to agree with my position in this matter.
>
> (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.)
>
That's probably the sum total of your reading in the field, or any
field close to it, and highlights one of your main difficulties. If
intentionalities were NOT involved, why do we not observe rampant
memetic behavior in the intentionalityless, such as animals?
Because their responses are circumscribed by instinct, rather than
being to a degree free to be consciously chosen, as ours are, and
thus modifications of them are very difficult and rare outside of
repetitive and reward/punishment based operant behavioral
stimulus-response conditioning, unlike us, who are VERY
intentional and are at the same time permeated and perfused with
signs and memes (which are composed of signs), and which do
NOT have to be bludgeoned into our dense matter via repeated
electric shock or serial starvation.
>
> BTW, someone should probably tell you, on this list such issues have been
> discussed at great length for years without much sign of a consensus 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.
>
Your proselytizing interest in excluding intentionality, subjectivity,
and self-conscious awareness may be serious to you and your Zen-
Doctrine-of-No-Mind brethren, but not to many others here besides
myself who have also disagreed with you on these very points in
this very venue. The extent of your desperation in this matter is
only emphasized by your resorting to a transparently false
rhetorical ploy in a failed and futile attempt to defend the
undefendable.
>
> >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... :-)
>
Life or Sim City are not memes to PC's (because nothing is
anything to them); they are, however, memes in the self-
consciously aware intentionalities of those who choose to program
them onto their PC's, and were both constructed and
communicated by other such self-consciously aware
intentionalities.
> --
> 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 09 2000 - 02:07:48 GMT