Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA01503 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:26:05 GMT From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: meaning in memetics Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:12:44 -0800 Message-ID: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJAELCEFAA.richard@brodietech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <00021217261101.00510@faichney> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Robin wrote:
<<If Dennett really would stand on the claim that "intentionalities are
necessarily involved in memetics" then I'm sorry to have to say he's wrong.
I
do know that he does not understand the difference between physical and
intentional information, because he said as much at the May 99 Cambridge
meeting, but given his work with Sue Blackmore, he should be familiar with
the
argument as to the memetic nature of birdsong. Ah well, I guess maybe he's
not
infallible after all.>>
Dennett and I are pretty much in agreement on everything to do with memetics
that I am aware of... of course his understanding goes much deeper than mine
as he is so well grounded in the many branches of philosophy. The birdsong
example is distracting because it brings into play the question of non-human
transmission of culture, which arguably exists but is clearly, to me at
least, a different animal from memetics, which studies the interplay between
self-replicating information and the human mind.
To say that Dennett "does not understand" the difference between physical
and intentional information is perhaps unfair. It might be more accurate to
say that he does not acknowledge such a difference. You believe that there
are inherent patterns to be found in the universe. I think it is more useful
to believe that all patterns are in the eye of the beholder. Dennett's idea
of "Good Tricks" is a wonderful medium in this philosophical minefield.
Your claim that he is "wrong" is disturbing. Do you really think there is
one "right" model and that all others are "wrong"? The test of a good
scientific model is the results it produces predictively, and further down
the road the engineering that can be done with that model. From that
standpoint both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics are great models for
different purposes. Similarly there are many ways to look at cultural
evolution, one being memetics.
Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com www.memecentral.com/rbrodie.htm
===============================================================
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 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 16:26:08 GMT