Re: I know one when I see one

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Fri 01 Nov 2002 - 09:20:54 GMT

  • Next message: joedees@bellsouth.net: "Re: how does language happen?"

    >
    > On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 04:49 , joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
    >
    > > That is why I get itchy using the term 'beme' to refer to behavior.
    >
    > Beme is used for those specific cultural behaviors that requires both
    > performer and observer. Nothing to get itchy about.
    >
    > > To add one meme-type is not in the same Occamic violation class as
    > > is indefinitely multiplying behavioral instantiations.
    >
    > Interesting take on the bemetic model. Completely facetious, of
    > course. It is simply a fact of time and space that all things are not
    > something else, and that all events, in time and space, are unique.
    > That each and every behavior is something new, as each and every
    > moment is something new, is elementary.
    >
    But the white dog truth and bare bones fact is that there is massive continuity over time; otherwise, things like culture and evolution (and many others) make no sense. That each and every thing is connected to each and every other thing by a chain of cause and effect is EQUALLY elementary. Some chains are much more influential than others.
    >
    > It is not multiplying instantiations to simply count them.
    >
    It is when you deny their connections and thus deny their common membership in single systems.
    >
    > > Since memes reside in the mind, the systems entailed by such a model
    > > are the proper criteria be which to judge.
    >
    > You have no proof that memes are in the mind, and you are criticizing
    > _using_ the memeinthemind model, about a model that _does not_ include
    > memes in the mind.
    >
    I have fMRI proof that stimulation of certain neurons causes certain behaviors (as well as certain thoughts and perceptions) as well as P53 location proof that a cortical action potential is physically generated a half second before a decision to engage in a physical action consciously made.
    >
    > I do not conjecture about bemes in behavior- we know certain behaviors
    > are both performed and observed and culturally relevant. We know
    > nothing about any memeinthemind other than that such conjectures are
    > part of a hypothesis of motivational ideation.
    >
    We know plenty. We know that when you excise the brain, no further behavior is forthcoming. We know that certain behaviors are concommitant with certain activation patterns in specific brain locations. We know that in the absence of effective brainwaves, the patient just lies ther in a vegitative state. And plenty more, that I already have used to wipe out the closest analogue to your fallacy, Robin's Zennish No- Mind conjecture s while back. I was trying to be nice about this, but if necessary, I will resurrect each and every one of those self- contradiction arguments, for what you are really doing is denying the efficacy of the human self and the utility of both will and ideation.
    >
    > But, using a mutually exclusionary model to condemn another is
    > irresponsible.
    >
    What the hell do you call behavior-*ONLY*, hmmmmmmm?
    >
    > Show me your meme, and responsibility is established.
    >
    Excise your brain and show ME a behavior; I can, with a brain in a vat, remove the rest of my body and show you thoughts.
    >
    > I can show you a beme. You've seen millions in your life. You're doing
    > one answering this, if you choose to do so.
    >
    You show me a behavior. You cut it off from the meme when you deny its mental origin.
    >
    > And every one was different.
    >
    But not totally so. Otherwise one could never walk, for one could never put the same foot forward twice.
    >
    > No-one has ever seen a meme, or a meme-ory, and, indeed, there is no
    > way, at the moment, to elucidate such unique mental patternings as the
    > memeinthemind model demands with the present state of observational
    > tools.
    >
    Actually, one sees memes every time one reads or listens or watches another human being; they are simply encoded in various ways. But the prime coding is the cortical one; it is the coding from which all other codings issue.
    >
    > To use one conjectural model to criticize another is senseless.
    >
    To use what must logically be true for what is evidentiarily witnessed to criticise that which denies its own logical parentage is eminently reasonable.
    >
    > It would be like a sculptor criticizing a painting because the back of
    > the canvas was empty.
    >
    It is like a painter criticizing a batch of paint because the manufacturer sees no need for pigment.
    >
    > - 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 : Fri 01 Nov 2002 - 09:25:51 GMT