Re: new line: what's the point?

From: Robin Faichney (robin@faichney.demon.co.uk)
Date: Sun Mar 05 2000 - 15:19:00 GMT

  • Next message: Richard Brodie: "RE: new line: what's the point?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA12534 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 5 Mar 2000 15:29:38 GMT
    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: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 15:19:00 +0000
    X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21]
    Content-Type: text/plain
    References: <200003050559.AAA08690@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net>
    Message-Id: <00030515230703.00439@faichney>
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On Sun, 05 Mar 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
    >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: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 05:13:14 +0000
    >Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    >
    >> On Fri, 03 Mar 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>...do you or don't you deny the possibility of
    >> >> mechanistic memetic explanations?
    >> >>
    >> >Not if it involves the excision of meaning (semantics), intention or
    >> >selfawareness, but I do not believe it does.
    >>
    >> You have said that meme selection occurs only via conscious choice. Do you
    >> think that is compatable with mechanistic memetic explanation?
    >>
    >I believe that there can be accidentally or inadvertantly
    >communicated (on either or both the transmission and the
    >reception end) memes, but the very distinction exists only given
    >the prior existence of conscious choice, with which the accidental
    >and inadvertant can be compared and contrasted. Most memes,
    >and especially successfully selected ones, are transmitted and
    >attended to by choice, because to choose to transmit and/or
    >receive them is believed to hold some positive value for the
    >transmitter/receiver, or to choose to forbear from such memetic
    >transmission/reception is believed to hold some negative value for
    >the transmitter/receiver, or both.

    Please answer the question: is your story compatable with mechanistic memetic
    explanation, or not?

    As a corollary, or even a prequel, you might consider whether all conscious
    activity is accompanied by corresponding neural activity. I'm sure you'll see
    the relevance.

    --
    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 : Sun Mar 05 2000 - 15:30:12 GMT