Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA06509 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 16 Feb 2000 01:25:46 GMT Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:24:39 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) From: TJ Olney <market@cc.wwu.edu> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: RE: meaning in memetics In-Reply-To: <ECS10002151101A@imap.uea.ac.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.21.0002151524360.-334975@Starship051.cbe.wwu.edu> X-X-Sender: market@voyager.cbe.wwu.edu Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Soc Microlab 2 wrote, alex rousso wrote:
> The physical instantiation is virtually irrelevant in the following context. I could write the word "Hi" in
> candyfloss on the window, shout it from the rooftops, transmit it by e-mail, or carve it in stone on the face of
> mount rushmore. What are the similarities of physical instantiation there? Who cares! when the answer to
> the question of what is their similarity is staring us in the face - they all MEAN "Hi". That is what memetics is
> about - it's about the transmission of meaning.
snip...
and then
(from DDI p. 353-4)
> "what is preserved and transmitted in cultural evolution is *information* - in a media-neutral,
> language-neutral sense. Thus the meme is primarily a *semantic* classification, not a *syntactic*
> classification that might be directly observable in "brain language" or natural language."
> cheers, alex rousso.
***********
I applaud the current discussion that wrestles with the heart of
memetics.
It seems absurd, however, to assert that the meaning of hi
typed on a page and the meaning of hi carved into a mountain are the
same. Meaning is the "what goes along with this" of any verbalized
statement. Additionally, meaning can and does exist without words.
The use of "hi" as an example is perfect. Think about the difference
between what you mean when you say "hi" to different people in different
contexts. Or better yet how a person in search of a mate interprets the
meaning of "hi" dependent on a host of other pieces of the pattern
including context in space and time, degree of intoxication, percieved
attractiveness of the speaker etc. Hi is a sign. It's significance
varies. In any given use of the word "hi" the information exchanged is
represented by how many "differences that make a difference" there are
and the nature of these differences to the parties transmitting and
recieving the word hi.
Unfortunately, we are dealing with system properties here. System
theory informs us that synergy -- behavior of the system that
cannot be predicted from looking at the parts of the system -- will be a
property of the meaning system. Reduction fails at this level. We must
seek to find ways to define the system as well as its components parts.
It is useful to ask whether memes can exist apart from meaning, but we
must be careful how we ask the question. If we intend to be able to talk
about memes without talking about meaning, we are probably asking the
wrong question. If instead, we intend to be able to talk about the
relationships between memes, meanings, behaviors, and communication we
will be on a better path.
I expect that when the dust settles, we will have to acknowledge that
memes and meaning always go together, but that they don't go together
consistently. This inconsistency will turn out to be very like the
statistical noise encountered in every attempt to measure constructs in
the social sciences.
My current reading of the terrain goes something like this: Genes exist.
Genes support behavior that insures reproduction of the genes. Genes
support memes. Memes support behaviors that support the reproduction of
memes. Genes interacting with memes have produced in humans the emergent
property mind. In the early evolution of mind, memes were favored that
also favored the genes. In a positive feedback cycle, genes that favored
the production, retention and transmission of memes have been favored by
genetic and memetic selection. Mind produces as emergent properties
conciousness and meaning, both constituted of systems of memes. The
current state of genetic and memetic evolution no longer gives a clear
advantage to genes over memes but can allow gene detrimental memes to
occasionally thrive.
We have a long way to go, metaphorically speaking.
Regards,
@2000 TJ Olney Western Washington University
market@cc.wwu.edu
===============================================================
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 16 2000 - 01:25:49 GMT