Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA07400 (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 10:57:47 GMT Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:56:28 GMT From: Soc Microlab 2 <A.Rousso@uea.ac.uk> Subject: Re:meaning in memetics To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Message-ID: <ECS10002161028A@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
TJ wrote:
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.
<snip>
well, thanks for pointing that out,TJ, but I have to say I,we, everyone already knows that. That's why we
have the subjects of English Language, Literature, Linguistics, Semiotics - I could go on - some of which
are even taught at school. That meaning is constrained by many non-verbal, super-verbal, sentential,
emotional, etc. effects, we all take as read, but memetics cannot do everything at once. If you want to make
memetics about polysemy (multi-meaning) in texts or on mountain sides then you're going up against some
pretty big and established subjects (namely things like semiotics/semiology). Memetics isn't about that at the
moment - it has to get itself established before it takes on any big boys. You're saying that memetics should
be about the space between meaning and society, or meaning and "human behavioural systems" (for want
of a better phrase). It may get to that stage in the future, but at the moment all attempts (and there have
been a few) to frame memetics in the terms you speak of have come unstuck because we haven't got our
ontology right.
My argument with Robin (and Joe and . . .) takes place between meaning and syntax or meaning an
physical information - in that realm it's impossible to start concentrating on the polysemy of the word Hi
carved into a mountain. We all know there's polysemy in that message, but we've got our hands full already,
in trying to agree with each other as to whether there's something inherent in the physical instantiation of
the information that is implicitly part of the meme. Polysemy is just going to have to wait until we sort that
out!
To put it bluntly, I'm (we are) having enough trouble convincing Robin (and he's not alone) that we can have
a workable memetics by concentrating purely on a semantic ontology, even though, as physicalists, we
know that we are going to have to show how it boils down to the physical one day (BTW Dennett thinks we
don't really need to do this last bit). You reminding me that once we've finished that gargantuan task, we
then have to convince the semiologists et al. that we have a theory to rival theirs is all I need!
Cut it out! I've got a PhD to write here! :-)
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 16 2000 - 10:57:51 GMT