Re: I know one when I see one

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sat 02 Nov 2002 - 02:16:59 GMT

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

    >
    > On Friday, November 1, 2002, at 06:26 , joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
    >
    > > But we are able to rationally attribute such effects to other
    > > causes; such is not the case with multiple performances of similar
    > > meaningful actions.
    >
    > Multiple performances of similar meaningful actions can have several
    > other rational causes, one being rationality itself- there is nothing
    > in any appreciation of such performances that demands a memeinthemind
    > controlling them.
    >
    Wrong. There is no rational reason to indulge in the 'hokey pokey' or the macarena, and certainly no rational reason to insert 'like' in teen speech (except for peer acceptance, and that begs the question of why the first few aficianados would engage in such behavior). But at the same time, you have failed to explain the tokens' similarity to each other in the absence of recourse to a common type. This an Occamic violation of the first order, and one to which you have so far utterly failed to effectively respond.
    >
    > Besides, where is this 'meaning' coming from? Surely
    > there are several models that separate meaning from action entirely,
    > rational models that have great success of prediction, like granular
    > dynamics for traffic flow, in spite of the fact that traffic is
    > composed of humans performing individual actions, perhaps with some
    > meaning attached to them.
    >
    And each of them depend upon similar, albeit individual, individuals in common circumstances (called cars) react to common environmental exigencies (caled traffic jams). For a simpler model of the same phenomenon, you might wat to check queue theory.
    >
    > I appreciate your adherence to the memeinthemind model, but to call it
    > the only possible and consequential explanation of similar behaviors
    > i sheer and blatant absurdity.
    >
    Actually, your persistent adherence to the exclusive 'external only' model, in opposition to the both-and mentation-behavior model, is what I find to be absurd. A one-sided coin canot exist.
    >
    > - 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 : Sat 02 Nov 2002 - 02:21:04 GMT