Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA18622 (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 21:07:16 GMT X-Sender: tonmaas@pop.xs4all.nl Message-Id: <v03102803b4d5f630f08b@[194.109.13.153]> In-Reply-To: <00022008092900.00482@faichney> References: <200002171759.MAA29752@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:18:08 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Ton Maas <tonmaas@xs4all.nl> Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #130 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Robin Faichney wrote:
>>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?
Kinda stumbling in like this, I am tempted to say that your hypothetical
example is a perfect illustration of the impossibility of such a language.
The only exception I can think of would be the "language" of bees, but that
might be just a series of separate, singular signals, not subject to
learning and/or social evolution. In any other real language the very word
"meaning" is about as tricky as it gets. Contrary to what dictionary
entries suggest, the analog aspects of communication (which are _not_
arbitrary) outweigh the digital ones in a "land slide".
It's an old theme (at least to me), but this remains my main gripe with
memetics to date: its preoccupation with "content" rather than context.
Regards,
Ton
===============================================================
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 - 21:07:20 GMT