From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Fri 23 May 2003 - 19:13:53 GMT
>
> On Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 04:53 PM, Joe wrote:
>
> > the problem of dealing with multiple differing
> > modes of communicating the selfsame meme-type is insoluble within
> > the preformance paradigm.
>
> And yet again, _there is no selfsame meme-type_ in the performance
> model
>
But the evidence is overwhelming that they are ubiquitous in reality;
there is no other rational explanation for the fact that vastly different
transmitter performance modalities can result in intention-
indistinguishable behavios by the recipients. The fact that there is no
selfsame meme-type, of which these varying encoding modalities are
tokens, in the so-called performance-only model, is one of the bells
tolling its death-knell (although it never really lived).
>
> This is the basic fact of the model that you have so far
> refused to understand. There are only performances that are similar.
> The effect of similarity is often and usefully mistaken or used as
> isomorphic identity for the purposes of cultural continuation, but
> this identity is an illusion, and not just a semantic axiom.
>
The denial if the type-token relationship, and the denial of the cognitive
type-template which explains the intended similarity of the tokens even
when the template is manifested in varying ways, is a basic flaw that
renders the entire performance-only scheme quite irrational,
unreasonable, and completely bereft of a real-world referent to which it
could ever possibly be applied.
>
> And since there is no problem of selfsame memes in the performance
> model, there is _no need_ to attempt to solve it.
>
But that is where Occam's Razor intervenes; real-world conditions are
thus left unexplained. You can choose not to see them, as the
churchmen refused to look through Galileo's telescope to see the
mountains on the moon, but they are nevertheless there, and their
ubiquitous presence is lethal to your pseudomodel.
>
> All of your criticisms of the performance model have stemmed from this
> _basic_ misunderstanding.
>
No, I very well understand your confusion, and am laboring to free you
of it.
>
> My criticism of the memeinthemind model stems completely from the
> presently basic fact that you can't show me one.
>
When you can show the effects of something, you can logically entail
that they have a cause. When I can demonstrate that two vastly
different transmitter performances (speaking and writing) can cause two
recipients to do the selfsame thing (say, kneeling and facing north while
sticking their left thumb in their right ear), it is obvious that this is
because the selfsame cognitive meme for this behavior is being
encoded by the transmitters in two differing ways, and that the
recipients have learned the coding keys, and thus piece together the
sign-referent strings, be they spoken or written, into the selfsame
instruction.
>
> - 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 23 May 2003 - 19:18:50 GMT