Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA06574 (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 02:07:11 GMT Message-Id: <200002160202.VAA05495@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 20:09:27 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: meaning in memetics References: <ECS10002151101A@imap.uea.ac.uk> In-reply-to: <Pine.WNT.4.21.0002151524360.-334975@Starship051.cbe.wwu.edu> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Date sent: 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
Send 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.
>
This is an acknowledgement that the same gestalt considerations
which apply to perception and kill the constancy hypothesis apply
to conception as well. There is no meaning except within a field of
meanings, and the character of contiguous significations colors
and shapes the character of the focussed-upon meaning (this is
akin to the semiotic web, and sign-sign, or semantic, interrelations
within it).
>
> 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.
>
The definition of such a system must include not only the character
of its components, but also the character of their interrelations,
from whence the synergy of intentional and signifying self emerges.
>
> 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.
>
Memes cannot be islands; if bifurcated from their relationships with
mutator, sender, code, carrier and receiver (not WHAT such
elements are - vision or audition, english or chinese, etc., but THAT
they are), they cannot perdure and cease to exist.
>
> 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.
>
Memes, meaning and intention go together. Not any particular
meaning or intention, but SOME meaning and SOME intention, as
well as signifying, intentional senders and receivers, without which
signification and intentionality cannot exist, is required for memes
to "meme" (mutate and multiply).
>
> 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.
>
The evolution of self-conscious awareness is a necessary a priori
and a sine qua non for memes to exist. Having said this, once the
Godelian threshhold of self-referentiality was breached in the
complexity quotient of the material substrate of mind (the human
brain), and a fertile environmental niche emerged in which memes
could occur, they began coevolving - memes to be more easily
absorbed by minds, and minds to be more permeable to memes.
Why? Because of their utility. " Virus" is perhaps an unfortunately
derogatory term when applied to memes, for although some are
virulent and cause difficulties, many (and perhaps most) are
symbionts, and facilitate ease of interrealtion between self, others
and our common world.
>
> We have a long way to go, metaphorically speaking.
>
But we ARE moving forward.
>
> 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 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 - 02:07:15 GMT