Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA10542 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 4 Mar 2000 20:06:03 GMT Message-Id: <200003042004.PAA13008@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 14:07:54 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: new line: what's the point? In-reply-to: <00030417442002.00924@faichney> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk>
Organization: Reborn Technology
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: new line: what's the point?
Date sent: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 16:47:54 +0000
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> >> On Wed, 01 Mar 2000, Soc Microlab 2 wrote:
> >> >This still leaves the question of what *level* memetics becomes a useful
> >> >application, and I say, (after Dennett) that it is at the level of meaning rather than below that. (see "who's
> >> >afraid of reductionism?" in DDI for more on this).
> >>
> >> I think maybe uncertainty about "meaning" and "intentionality" is causing a
> >> problem here. Many take both of these terms to imply subjectivity, which I
> >> don't think Dennett does.
> >>
> >How can an entity that does not possess subjectivity either mean
> >or intend anything? Short answer: it can't. Subjectivity is an a
> >priori sine qua non for both signification and intentionality.
>
> Didn't you say you'd read all of Dennett's books? I suggest you reread The
> Intentional Stance, at least. I'm sure you possess it, and Dennett's style is
> infinitely more persuasive than mine, even for the average reader, nevermind
> those with preconceptions.
>
Yeah, you lionize Dennett when his position agrees with your own
preconceptions, and claim he must be wrong where you disagree.
>
> >> >> My main concern is to say that memetics need, and
> >> should, have no subjective element.
> >>
> >You believe, following your particular sect of your religion, that
> >there is and can be no such creature as a subject, so you
> >proselytizationally and self-contradictorally attempt to excise all
> >reference to subjectivity from EVERYTHING. P. S. It is you
> >yourSELF who is attempting this (whack from a staff).
>
> You have no understanding of my position, whatsoever. For me, the subject is as
> real as the object, and consciousness is as real as matter. The meaning of
> "self" equivocates far too much for anything useful to be easily said about it,
> including either that it "is real" or "is unreal". (You should not confuse
> positions adopted in debates with "true beliefs" -- as, for instance, where I
> have argued against the reality of the self. If you search carefully enough,
> you'll find that early in that debate I revealed my true feelings, when I said
> something to the effect that the self is neither real nor unreal, being a
> useful concept in some contexts but not in others. But do try to bear in mind,
> that was in virus, while we're now in memetics -- a distinction you've
> neglected in the past, no doubt to the bemusement of most of your readers here.)
>
The many compliments I have received here have not, AFAICT,
been motivated by bemusement, although the dismissals you have
received from most here do seem to have a bemused tone about
them. And I have represented your position correctly; it is a
quasi-buddhistically motivated black-box homo est machina
behaviorism.
>
> >> >>That's my main beef with Joe, too.
> >> However, with subjectivity eliminated, I'm no longer sure what "the level of
> >> meaning" means. But how about this: one meme, in two different brains, is
> >> identified as such not by its encoding in any mind or brain "language" (ie
> >> syntactically), but by its effects on behaviour: these individuals behave in a
> >> relevantly similar fashion.
> >>
> >This sounds like what it is: a regression to the Watsonian
> >behaviorism that was discredited during the cognitive revolution in
> >the '70's.
>
> That would be true if I were advocating the elimination of subjectivity from
> psychology, but I'm not. While some psychology would be unaffected, much
> would be rendered useless. But memetics is not psychology. You must realise
> that there's a difference between saying that a particular phenomenon or concept
> should not be the concern of, or used within, a particular discipline, and
> saying that it does not exist or is of no importance. Subjectivity, generally,
> is as valid and useful as objectivity. But each has its own appropriate areas
> of application, within which the other is more-or-less useless. We can debate
> these applications, but your ideology-mongering tends to get in the way
> of rational discussion.
>
Subjectivity, intention and signification are as necessary to
memetics as behavior precisely because although memes
replicate/propagate by means of the physical environment, it is in
the cognitive environment that they are inculcated, that they
mutate, and that they are selected. Memetics of necessity must
be both physical and psychological. You have lost this argument
on its merits, and need to put it down at the water's edge, rather
than dogmatically persist in carrying it around in your head like a
mistaken monk.
> --
> 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 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 : Sat Mar 04 2000 - 20:06:07 GMT