Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA05972 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:33:50 GMT Message-Id: <200003121232.HAA12604@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 06:35:39 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: Monkeys stone herdsman in Kenya In-reply-to: <00031211520200.00474@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: Monkeys stone herdsman in Kenya
Date sent: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 11:40:19 +0000
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> It's Sunday again, and I find a precious few minutes to participate in my
> favourite mailing list.
>
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Richard Brodie wrote:
> >
> >I would call information in a book an artifact.
>
> The book itself is obviously an artifact, but the information "in" it? That
> begs many questions, not least of which is: what exactly do we mean when we say
> that there is information "in" a book? I think that such questions have to be
> answered before memetics can make very much progress. In fact, I think that
> the lack of such answers is precisely what has bogged memetics down since 1976,
> and will continue to do so until they are provided. And I confidently predict
> that the central concept here will be found to be that of encoding.
>
Not only encoding alone, but an encoded and meaningful
MESSAGE.
>
> >It may be that a percentage
> >of humans with a certain cultural context
>
> Or decoding key?
>
You mean a common language.
And shared values, enabling them to relate to the message's
meaning.
>
> >predictably acquire a certain meme
> >from observing a single artifact (such as your example), or it may be that
> >it requires (e.g.) an entire course of study at a university before someone
> >predictably acquires a certain meme.
>
> More key(s), no?
>
And more value transfer.
>
> >Either way, as long as the
> >self-perpetuating structure of acquired mental information is there, it's
> >properly studied as memetics.
>
> Agreed -- with the quibble that "mental" is not very well defined, but if it's
> taken to mean "in the brain", then memes only spend part of their life-cycle
> there -- admittedly an absolutely essential part. Gosh, it gives you
> confidence when you know Dennett shares your position! :-)
>
Jerry A. Fodor proved Dennett wrong about the reality of mental
imagery (in other words, the fact that it exists is not an illusion we
deceive ourselves into believing); the rate at which people could
rotate a mental cube was experimentally measurable. If you want
the reference, I can look it up for you. Dennett himself has said of
him, "often scales have fallen from my eyes upon reading Fodor",
or something to that effect.
> --
> 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 : Sun Mar 12 2000 - 12:33:59 GMT