Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA19804 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:33:44 GMT Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:33:03 GMT From: Soc Microlab 2 <A.Rousso@uea.ac.uk> Subject: Re: meaning in memetics To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Message-ID: <ECS10002211003A@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
Robin wrote:
Saying it's not enough, is not enough. What we h=
ave
to say is, what is enough? And in particular, out of what, exactly, does
intentionality emerge? That's what I'm interested in, and that's why I s=
tart
at such a low level, as bare physical information. What I'm currently wo=
rking
towards is a *memetic* explanation of intentionality.
(snip)
excellent. I finally understand your point. I still disagree, but that's different. If you think memetics
is/should be involved in explaining/deriving intentionality from physical substance, OK, but I think you
should definitely check Dennett before doing so. He's already done all the hard work for you, and as a
point of interest, he explains intentionality without recourse to memes. Memes come after - in turning an
intentional being into a "gregorian" being (see Dennett's tower of generate-and-test) - a being who can
get (learn/imitate/copy) "good tricks" such as language, tool use and so on, from others.
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 : Mon Feb 21 2000 - 10:33:49 GMT