Re: Standard definition

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu 31 Oct 2002 - 08:14:49 GMT

  • Next message: joedees@bellsouth.net: "Re: virus: Psychological Profile of Hall"

    >
    > On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 10:57 , joedees@bellsouth.net
    > wrote:
    >
    > > And what about the storage of meme-ory?
    >
    > The fact of memory is self-evident.
    >
    > What about the storage of meme-ory? How is that self-evident?
    >
    The meme is what is stored in memory. If one is self-evident, so is the other.
    >
    > > But to obviate my point, you would have to be thinking of nothing,
    > > both before and during your automatic-writing performance.
    >
    > Writing is both intentional and haphazard, directed and aleatory- I am
    > not making a claim that it is 'automatic' at all. I am merely saying
    > that I do not, regardless of how carefully I think about it, capable
    > of commanding precisely what falls from my fingers, and I do claim
    > that no-one is, ever, nor has been. Other things can and do happen,
    > unforeseen.
    >
    But you cannot claim that all your typing is automatic, random and fortuitous, without additionally claiming that you are quite a remarkably statistic-violating zombie.
    >
    > > Uh-uh. In the first case, we have physical differences;
    >
    > My first case was a specific species of spider making specific webs
    > against varying supports- I stand by it- this is a hard-wired
    > stratagem that nevertheless, due to purely environmental differences,
    > will produce similar but non-identical webs. Language is precisely
    > this sort of stratagem, and environment will produce similar but
    > non-identical structures.
    >
    But WHICH language? There are so many human-created languages, but only one type of spider web per species, of which all the instantiations are tokens.
    >
    > > in the second,
    > > we have cultural, that is, cognitive ones - exactly the kind of
    > > thing your behavior-only attempt at memetics cannot admit without
    > > self- destructing.
    >
    > My second case was English vs. Chinese- yes, cultural differences, but
    > differences produced by _one_ unique species, homo sapiens, in
    > different physical and cultural environments, environment being the
    > _only_ differing circumstance as the cognitive ability for language is
    > genetic and developmental, and thus the only affector of the language
    > difference. No destruction of the behavior-only memetic model is
    > occuring at any time in this, in fact, I see only underscoring and
    > support for the model, and, yes, self-destruction of the meme in the
    > mind model, as we cannot have had, at any time, a memetic transfer
    > across the Pacific Ocean, and yet we have languages on both shores. It
    > is the behavior that needed to change with the environment, not some
    > imaginary entity placed in a brain by some imaginary process involving
    > an ancillary layer of memory and cognition.
    >
    But spiders do not teach each other how to weave their webs. And yet we teach our children our languages. That difference is cognition- specific, for we can only teach them the languages we have not only experientially learned but also cognitively stored.
    >
    > - Wade
    >
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 2.1.5 : Thu 31 Oct 2002 - 08:18:55 GMT