Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA06653 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 22 Mar 2000 21:52:19 GMT Message-Id: <200003222150.QAA11298@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 15:54:28 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: objections to "memes" In-reply-to: <A4400389479FD3118C9400508B0FF230040BB8@DELTA.newhouse.akzonobel.nl> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: "Gatherer, D. (Derek)" <D.Gatherer@organon.nhe.akzonobel.nl>
To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: objections to "memes"
Date sent: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:36:10 +0100
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Robert:
> BTW are there any
> memetic conferences this summer in North America or Europe for that
> matter? I would be obliged to anyone who can provide me with information.
>
> Derek:
> There's going to be one in Warwick in the summer. It was advertised on the
> list, but unfortunately since we don't seem to have an archive any more,
> I've completely lost all the details.
>
> Robert:
> Memes are not in the brain or in the behaviour - they re a theoretical
> construct to describe how human behaviour is replicated.
>
> Derek:
> I think you're probably closer to me then, than to the thought
> contagionists/internalists. I agree that replicating behaviour is the
> primary thing. I'm not so sure, however, why we need such theoretical
> contructs. If we're describing how behaviour is replicated, then let's just
> do that. It's a question of Occam's Razor versus Occam's Hair Restorer.
> For the internalists memes are more than a theoretical contruct, they are
> 'heteroderivative mnemon instantiations' which are actual things or patterns
> of brain-stored information. You can see how this debate has unfolded in
> the pages of Journal of Memetics.
>
> As somebody who has worked in linguistics, you might appreciate the
> following argument against internalism. Internalists insist that awareness
> of propositions/sentences, eg awareness of 'bee venom invigorates' or
> awareness of 'Christ is Lord' (not my examples, these are from an
> internalist JoM article) are actually stored in brains as mnemons. This
> seems to me to ignore the Chomskian demonstration that propositions in
> language are generated rather then stored. In my JoM paper, I use an
> example 'Napoleon died in x' where x is any year. Back in the 50s in his
> debate with Skinner, Chomsky used 'The house that Jack built'. It's the
> same kind of argument. We can generate an infinite set of propositions. If
> we generate and utter them, we are presumably aware of them. In fact, even
> before uttering them, we are aware of them. For instance, I am aware of
> _every_ proposition of the form 'Napoleon died in x' (only one of which is
> true, of course - and I'm aware of which one). In order to store an
> infinite set of propositions, we'd need infinite brains, so it's clear that
> we don't store propositions.
>
It is not necessary to store all negated alternatives in order to store
a proposition (as in Napoleon died in X [and not in Y and not in Z
and not in...]); such consequences are deduced, as necessary
from the original statement.
>
> This isn't just about belief in a proposition (eg. my belief that Napoleon
> died in 1821). The internalists claim that belief in a proposition is a
> _separate_ mnemon, presumably with its own separate brain storage location,
> to awareness of a proposition. So even though I have only to store a single
> mnemon about belief in Napoleon's death, I have to store an infinite set of
> incorrect propositions of which I am aware.
>
See above. behavior basing can explain propogation, but not
mutation, for this, ideation basing is required. They are two sides
of a single coin,both of which are needed to complete it.
>
> Internalism is thus founded on a rejection of one of the fundamental points
> of modern linguistics. I'm not saying Chomsky's right about every thing,
> but he's right about this. Anyway, since it's clear you're not an
> internalist - it seems your position is more or less that of John Wilkins -
> then I dare say I'm preaching to the converted.
>
Statements may be Chomskyianly generated, and many can be to
express any particular conception. It is the single ideation, not all
the proliferent linguistic expressions of it, which would be stored.
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Wed Mar 22 2000 - 21:52:31 GMT