Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA23085 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:01:10 GMT From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> Organization: Reborn Technology To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #130 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 16:38:34 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200002201938.OAA00766@mail1.lig.bellsouth.net> Message-Id: <00022216411502.00473@faichney> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
>> >> >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?
>>
>Becaus of Ferdinand de Saussure (COURSE IN GENERAL
>LINGUISTICS), who pointed out that words only possess meanings
>in a gestalt field composed of a vocabulary of other words...
OK, forget the bit about individual words. But please explain why semantics
cannot be considered encoded in language, and how, if it is not encoded,
meaning gets conveyed from sender to receiver.
-- 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 : Tue Feb 22 2000 - 17:01:42 GMT