meaning in memetics

From: Soc. Lab. 2 (A.Rousso@uea.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Feb 09 2000 - 12:01:54 GMT

  • Next message: Lawrence H. de Bivort: "Re: Who holds the leash?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA19994 (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 12:08:17 GMT
    Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 12:01:54 GMT
    From: "Soc. Lab. 2" <A.Rousso@uea.ac.uk>
    Subject: meaning in memetics
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Message-ID: <ECS10002091254A@imap.uea.ac.uk>
    Delivery-Receipt-To: "Soc. Lab. 2" <j218@imap.uea.ac.uk>
    Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    <snip from robin/joe>

    > >It does mean that you're wrong about meaning having no
    place in=20
    > >the foundation of memetics. Do you even know what the
    word=20
    > >"meme" means? Just as genetic characteristics are
    enGENdered=20
    > >(replicated) through sexual reproduction, memes are
    reMEMbered=20
    > >(lodged in the MEMory) by means of communicative
    replication=20
    > >between intentionalities.
    >
    > Again I have to ask, sez who? If this was established,
    you'd obviously b=
    > e
    > 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 believ=
    > e
    > 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.)

    you don't seem to have read much Dennett - or if you have,
    you're at total loggerheads with the most fundamental aspect
    of his theory. Joe's comprehensive mind/meaning list of
    authors nevertheless missed out Darwin's Dangerous Idea and
    Consciousness Explained, both by Dennett, and both it should
    be stressed, the only established works on mind that
    explicitly use memes. I could quote extensively from those
    two, but while you're in the mood to tell others how much
    reading they need to do, I guess I'll tell you to (re)read
    them. Here's a quote from "Dennett and his Critics", from
    Dennett's replies p.230:

    "Above the biological level of brute belief and simple
    intentional icons, human beings have constructed a level
    that is composed of objects that are socially constructed,
    replicated, distributed, traded (etc). . . Dawkins has given
    us a generic name for these things - memes - and what I have
    called opinions are a species of memes: sentences on whose
    truth a person has, in effect, made a wager."

    now, if that ain't meaning maybe we are going to have to go
    back to the basics.

    To reiterate, Dennett sez that intentionalities are
    necessarily involved in memetics - intentionalities are (he
    thinks) the foundations from which we get meaning, and
    memetics is his theory of meaning. And whether you like it
    or not, Dennett is the Granddaddy of memetics right now.

    cheers, alex rousso.

    ===============================================================
    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 - 12:08:20 GMT