Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA17754 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 20 Feb 2000 09:04:11 GMT From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> Organization: Reborn Technology To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #130 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 08:02:57 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200002171759.MAA29752@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net> Message-Id: <00022008092900.00482@faichney> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
>From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk>
>
>> Cutting (off) to the chase, here...
>>
>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Soc Microlab 2 wrote:
>> <big snip>
>> >As I say chapters 12-14 of Darwin's Dangerous Idea are probably the best explanation of Dennett's view on
>> >this, but if you didn't have much time you could get an idea from the sub-chapter "could there be a science
>> >of memetics?" pp. 352-360. This quote should count as evidence that Dennett thinks memetics is about
>> >meaning: (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."
>>
>> What he's saying here is that the meme is encoded, not straight physical
>> information. The encoding can, and does, vary, but the encoded message remains
>> the same. No?
>>
>Yes, this is true. The coding is the syntax, and coding schemes
>may be studied structurally, without reference to meaning, kinda
>like the relations between algebraic variables may be studied
>independent of them being assigned specific quantities, as long as
>they are abstracted from any particular message. The message,
>however, is semantic, and cannot be so studied,
It cannot be studied as if it were syntax, because it is not. I'm saying it is
a different type and/or level of encoding (and it's relatively arbitrary,
while syntax is systematic). Consider a hypothetical language where every
utterance consisted of just one word. Syntax, which is about how words are
combined, would not be an issue. I say that the meaning of each word is
clearly encoded by that word. In fact, though it's probably an
oversimplification, you could say that about individual words in real
languages. Do you agree, and if not, why not?
-- Robin Faichney===============================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 : Sun Feb 20 2000 - 09:04:43 GMT