Re: Standard definition

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu 31 Oct 2002 - 17:48:02 GMT

  • Next message: joedees@bellsouth.net: "Re: I know one when I see one"

    >
    > On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 03:14 , joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
    >
    > > But you cannot claim that all your typing is automatic
    >
    > Again, I don't. Never did. Only that what does actually happen is
    > affected instantaneously by the performance itself. There is so much
    > corroborating data about this that I deem it self-evident. 'The best
    > laid plans of mice and men aft gae aglay'.
    >
    But not all of them, or even most of them, do so.
    >
    > > There are so many human-created languages,
    > > but only one type of spider web per species
    >
    > Are we at the point of claiming that all languages are unrelated or
    > unique in developmental and syntactical forms? I don't think so. We
    > are prepared by our genetic development to make language, just as the
    > spider is prepared to make webs. I am not _comparing_ webs and
    > language, only claiming a similar genetic importance. I suppose I am
    > being sociobiologic.
    >
    Actually, languages all have syntaxes, but those syntaxes are not all similar. The syntactical structures of Chinese and German, for example, are vastly different.
    >
    > > But spiders do not teach each other how to weave their webs
    >
    > Of course not. They do not have culture, or memes, and yet they
    > produce similar but unique versions of webs just as we produce similar
    > but unique versions of languages.
    >
    That is because the way each species of spider produces a web is hardwired, unlike English, !Kung, or Urdu.
    >
    > > 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.
    >
    > Totally agree with this. I just wonder why the 'and yet' needs to be
    > said.
    >
    > Cognitive storing seems to be our dividing ground. You want this
    > stored very specially and specifically in some 'meme-ory', and I don't
    > particularly see any need to store it anywhere special or specific,
    > and would call it a very usual and developmentally preset function of
    > usual memory to deal with such experiential learned information.
    >
    Languages are not stored in our big toes, and neither are memories or their replicating subset memes. They are stored in, and accessed from, our brains.
    >
    > - 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 - 17:52:06 GMT