Re: I know one when I see one

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu 31 Oct 2002 - 21:49:43 GMT

  • Next message: joedees@bellsouth.net: "Re: electric meme bombs"

    >
    > On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 03:45 , joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
    >
    > > The means is through behavior
    >
    > Perhaps that is as far as I prefer to go.
    >
    > > There is nothing in the bemetic model which denies memory or learned
    > > and retained skills. Nothing.
    > >
    > > There is if it is categorized, as you have, as the *behavior-ONLY*
    > > model.
    >
    > Ah. Phrase error- misinterpretation alert. Okay. By 'behavior-only'
    > model, I mean to say that cultural change is only possible when
    > behaviors happen, and, if the meme is a unit of cultural change, it is
    > thus more handy to locate the meme there, in that performance, and in
    > that performance only. It uncomplicates the motivational traps and
    > required cognitive wonderings of the memeinthemind model.
    >
    Cultures change only when minds do.
    >
    > > And that is where the occamic violation of multiplying entities
    > > beyond not only necessity, but workability, happens, by
    > > polyfurcating multiple similar behavioral token-instantiations of
    > > the self-same meme-type into nonrelational sui generis entities.
    >
    > I take it as some sort of wonder that I actually understand this
    > sentence. The only problem I have with the memeinthebrain model is
    > that I don't see the need for a meme to be there. The brain has enough
    > to do without being bothered with a meme.
    >
    Actually, being bothered with memes is part of its memory function.
    >
    > But, you are judging, and denying, the beme model by using the systems
    > of the memeinthemind model, and they are apples and oranges.
    >
    Since memes reside in the mind, the systems entailed by such a model are the proper criteria be which to judge.
    >
    > I am trying not to use the bemetic model in my denial of the
    > memeinthemind model, but to show that the occamic violation of it is
    > more severe, seen from the outside vantage of understanding and
    > analyzation. Of course, I could totally be wrong, in my funny walk.
    > But it feels right, and I get all itchy when I try to walk the
    > memeinthemind model.
    >
    To add one meme-type is not in the same Occamic violation class as is indefinitely multiplying behavioral instantiations.
    >
    > > But those plans are the meme
    >
    > So you say, from the perspective of the memeinthemind. I just say
    > those plans are the plans. I get itchy when I have to use two terms
    > for the same thing.
    >
    That is why I get itchy using the term 'beme' to refer to behavior.
    >
    > - 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 - 21:53:50 GMT