From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu 31 Oct 2002 - 20:07:29 GMT
>
> On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 12:58 , joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > Beme (x1), (x2), (x3), ...(xn) may all be seen as externally
> > performed/manifested tokens of the internally stored template meme-
> > type x.
>
> They may indeed. Richard agrees with you there.
>
> But, I see no reason to see them as anything but performances- with
> _none_ of this token identity involved at all.
>
> Because there _is_ no 'internally stored template meme', (well, there
> ain't one needed in the bemetic model), and there is no way to know
> what someone else is thinking prior to performance, and performance
> itself is a feedback self-referential event.
>
> As I point out in tireless repetition- no-one can know one's own
> actual performance prior to the actual performance, and again I defy
> you to say we do. This is not just an axiom of the beme theory, but a
> fact of causal events in this universe. There is many a slip twixt the
> cup and the lip, and the best laid plans often go awry. What happens
> in performance is, at best, well prepared for, but it, _in no way_, is
> a _completely_ manifested token of anything internal. We move in, out,
> up, down, left, right, in an external universe, not just dance in
> thought within our brains. It is not until the actual performance that
> completeness of the beme happens.
>
> As to whether or not there are memes hopping about in the brain prior
> to performance, I see no need to put anything there but normal
> cognitive processes like memory and recall, sense and sensory
> feedback, and all the other things that occupy the brain during a time
> of awake consciousness. I see no need to multiply entities of
> cognitive process by introducing a meme, a meme-ory, or anything else.
> If what what does with memory is cultural, then a beme happens. If one
> simply recalls, recollection happens. If you want to embrace the
> activities of the mind prior to bemetic performance, and call that
> process 'memetic', fine. The process is what is important to me and I
> see no need to add more cogs and whistles.
>
> And I'm continually amazed that anyone really wants to complicate,
> even further, the already over-archingly complex process that is human
> thought.
>
> Culturally, nothing happens until the performance of the beme. As
> humans, we have culture, but, I see no reason to make it a multiplied
> entity, either, but rather see it as an expected product of social and
> cognitive processes, impacting upon the self (that referential
> emergent process you so capably describe) and continued through
> performance.
>
> - Wade
>
And I will repeat my objections to same; not only does the denial of a
commone meme-plate for various beme-tokens violate Occam's razor,
since it multiplies entities beyond necessity (instead of multiple
instantiations of a single informational pattern, we now are offered a
plethora of unconnected behavior manifestations), but by rejecting the
type-token structure upon which language is based, you render it
impossibly unwieldy, inconceivably difficult to learn and teach, and
useless as a communication tool, for each thing must have its own
name, unrelated to all other things (a separate name for each tree,
cloud and grain of sand).
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 - 20:11:35 GMT