Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA10265 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:03:42 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, 29 Feb 2000 17:24:25 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200002281949.OAA12380@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> Message-Id: <00022917341400.00354@faichney> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
>From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk>
>
>> What is MEANING, and how does it get copied?
>>
>Main Entry: mean·ing
>Pronunciation: 'mE-ni[ng]
>Function: noun
>Date: 14th century
>1 a : the thing one intends to convey especially by language :
>PURPORT b : the thing that is conveyed especially by language :
>IMPORT
>2 : something meant or intended : AIM <a mischievous meaning
>was apparent>
>3 : significant quality; especially : implication of a hidden or special
>significance <a glance full of meaning>
>4 a : the logical connotation of a word or phrase b : the logical
>denotation or extension of a word or phrase
>- meaning adjective
>- mean·ing·ly /-ni[ng]-lE/ adverb
>Meaning gets copied by means of communication.
That doesn't tell us anything. I'd ask "what is communication", except I
suspect you'd answer "that which copies meaning".
>> Consider this quote:
>>
>> A last hope for the Darwin-dreaders is simply to deny that what happens to
>> memes when they enter a mind could ever, ever be explained in "reductionistic,"
>> mechanistic terms. (DDI p368)
>>
>> Clearly, those who argue against so-called reductionist explanations using the
>> concepts of meme "software" running on genetically designed "hardware" (or
>> "wetware") are Dennettian Darwin-dreaders, skyhook-true-believers.
>>
>No we're not; we just recognize that the hardware has, due to
>genetically based evolution, become so complex as to admit of
>recursivity, self-referentiality and self-awareness. Genetics has
>evolved to the point where it has overthrown itself by programming
>us to have the capacity to transcend our programming, and to
>create a rapidly evolving (by genetic standards) memetically
>mediated culture. The position is called emergent cognitive
>materialism, and not only are Daniel C. Dennett and Jerry A. Fodor
>adherents, but it has become the dominant stance in the field of
>cognitive psychology.
But there seems a contradiction here: Dennett says those who deny meme
processing could ever be explained in "reductionistic," mechanistic terms are
Darwin-dreaders. You say no, you're not, and what's more, according to you,
Dennett shares your position. What gives?
-- 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 29 2000 - 18:04:16 GMT