Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA25017 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 6 Mar 2000 19:40:26 GMT Message-Id: <200003061938.OAA15912@mail4.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 13:42:27 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: new line: what's the point? In-reply-to: <00030617491901.00458@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: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:41:01 +0000
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> >>
> >> But let's focus on the point at issue here. In DDI, Dennett says that memes
> >> are semantically rather than syntactically encoded in the brain, because there
> >> is no "brain language" (I think "brain programming language" might convey the
> >> point more effectively) which is consistent across brains. The clear
> >> implication is that semantic here does *not* necessarily imply subjective,
> >> because the requirement can be covered by saying that the same meme in
> >> different brains codes for the same behaviour, regardless of neural
> >> instantiation. Do you disagree, and if so, why?
> >>
> >The fact that the neural instantiations differ across individuals is
> >proof of their individuality, not the opposite.
>
> I said nothing about individuality or its opposite. If you think that the
> elimination of subjectivity from memetics has such implications, that's your
> problem. Literally. You probably think it would mean free will going out
> the window too. You need to get a more sophisticated concept of mechanism.
> Your present view is quite outdated. Compatibilism is *in*! :-)
>
Oh, so you are making a free, individual and subjective choice in
favor of that, huh? Lemme counter that if you think that subjectivity
CAN be eliminated from memetics, that's YOUR problem.
Literally. Because, like the elephant in the room, the fact that we
are selfaware, and that this selfawareness provides the background
for what we think, say and do, simply will not go away. Even if you
hide your eyes, it still stands just beyond (and behind) your fingers.
>
> >As you yourself said,
> >we are not talking intersubjectively identical coding here. Also,
> >your assumption that the behavior is the same rather than similar
> >cannot be substantiated, and in fact would seem to preclude the
> >mutation necessary for memetic evolution,
>
> It's not an assumption -- see below.
>
No, just an unsubstantiated (and easily disprovable) assertion on
your part - I saw below.
>
> >and your claim that it is
> >the "same" meme coded in different brains is clearly confused.
>
> What I'm saying is that *where* the behaviour is the same, *then*, and to the
> same extent, are we concerned with the same meme. In fact, similarity of
> behaviour (which is obviously a matter of degree) is necessary but probably not
> sufficient to determine similarity of meme. (And, of course, where we're
> talking about items of information, similarity is identity.)
>
So since 1101101101 is similar to 1101101011, they are identical?
I don't want you as a tax accountant. Coarse-grained verisimilitude
is revealable with a finer-grained view to be disparity depending
upon one's referential frame, and the hermeneutic dialectic between
distanciation and appropriation to establish the optimum
perspective for viewing an object depends for that optimization upon
what aspects of the object one wishes to view. Identicality is an
absolute that must withstand the scrutiny of the finest-grained
referential frame.
> --
> 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 : Mon Mar 06 2000 - 19:40:32 GMT