Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA08531 (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 20:42:15 GMT Message-Id: <200002162041.PAA04526@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:44:01 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re:meaning in memetics In-reply-to: <ECS10002161028A@imap.uea.ac.uk> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Date sent: 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
Send 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! :-)
>
Getting rid of the alphabetical problem, the meaning of "Pi" is the
same whether the mathematical term or the two-letter word is
used, and whether it is transmitted through the phonemic sound,
the printed alphabet, morse code or sign language. The
signification, while dependent upon SOME physical instantiation, is
independent of any PARTICULAR one.
>
> 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 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 - 20:42:18 GMT