From: Lawrence DeBivort (debivort@umd5.umd.edu)
Date: Fri 06 Jun 2003 - 23:13:28 GMT
Hi, Dace: I think I explained how we see the differences in my email: I'll
restate here.
Understanding: things consciously considered and meaning grasped.
Mimicry: copying without attempt to understand; it is a reactive and
unprocessed act.
Influence: initiated by an actor and aimed at the beliefs or actions of a
second party. To be successful in its influence, a meme has to meet certain
criteria held (consciously or unconsciously) by the second party.
Cheers,
Lawry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Dace
> Sent: Fri, June 06, 2003 4:57 PM
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: _Religion Explained_ by Pascal Boyer
>
>
> > From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
> >
> > Greetings, all,
> > There is yet a third alternative to 'understanding' and 'mimicry', and
> that
> > is _influence_. Memes, in our PoV, is much more about influence than
> either
> > (conscious, considered) understanding, or (reactive,
> unprocessed) mimicry.
> > If one only considers understanding and mimicry, it is not too
> surprising
> > that the notion of memes is disputed and seemingly inadequate.
>
> How is influence different from mimicry?
>
> > From: Keith Henson <hkhenson@rogers.com>
> >
> > At 02:19 PM 05/06/03 -0700, Ricard wrote:
> > >Dace wrote:
> > >
> > ><<Epidemiology provides a better model for memes than cognitive science
> > >precisely because memes are only a tiny subclass of transmitted
> information
> > >that is not influenced by standard cognitive factors.
> >
> > Memes, every single one of them, depend on "standard cognitive
> > features." Pascal Boyer makes this really clear in his book, which is
> much
> > more on cognitive science than anything else.
>
> Okay, you've sold me. I will read this book. It'll be interesting to see
> how it stacks up against Barbara Ehrenreich's *Blood Rites.*
>
> > >While ordinarily
> > >information must be regarded in the context of speaker and listener and
> has
> > >no self-existence outside their conscious minds, memes are discrete
> packets
> > >of information that change only through accidental mutation. Memes are
> > >ideas that have taken on a life of their own
> >
> > *All* ideas that are spread around to a lot of minds have "a
> life of their
> > own." This is, of course, only metaphor.
>
> I have to disagree. Many ideas, including the ones we're exchanging now,
> have no life of their own, even metaphorically, and merely respond to the
> mental life of we humans.
>
> > From: Keith Henson <hkhenson@rogers.com>
> >
> > At 12:28 PM 05/06/03 -0700, you wrote:
> > > > From: "Ray Recchia" <rrecchia@mail.clarityconnect.com>
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately your narrowed definition is even more confusing. Why
> not
> > > > call it a T-meme? Or a sub-meme, or an P-meme. sub for
> subconscious.
> > > > The problem you have is that the same objections you raise for
> > > > consciously aware memes are raisable for those that are transmitted
> > > > subconsciously. You've sited a "recreation" phenonoma. That a meme
> is
> > > > not so much reproduced as created.
> > >
> > >Oh, no, I'm saying that memes are replicated from mind to mind, while
> > >typically ideas are recreated in each mind through the process of
> > >understanding. Replication involves mimickry more than genuine
> > >understanding.
> >
> > Which would you say applies to a person who has internalized
> the baseball
> > meme and knows how to play it?
>
> If you grow up in the USA, baseball is a meme. If you grow up in
> a foreign
> country, it's an idea. Same goes for the English language. I
> never had to
> consciously make an effort to learn English. It all came through simple
> imitation. But if you're Chinese, you don't get English through cultural
> osmosis. You have to study it and learn it as a sequence of
> ideas. I had a
> philosophy professor in college who once worked in Japan. He said that
> after a few years of struggling with Japanese, one day it just "clicked."
> Suddenly he could speak fluently and never had to strain to understand
> people. He had become part of the culture and shared in the habit of
> thinking and talking in Japanese. At that point, Japanese ceased to
> function as an idea for him and became a meme.
>
> > > > In addition your example of religion points the necessarily
> arbritrary
> > > > nature of the distinction you are making. "Darwin's
> Cathedral" points
> > > > out that elements of Calvinism were intentionally created as a
> contrast
> > > > to the Catholic church which the founders thought was bloated and
> corrupt.
> > >
> > >Yes, what begins as idea becomes ingrained as meme. I'm saying that
> memes
> > >are simply culturally shared habits. Just as conscious thoughts become
> > >habitual and unconscious if repeated enough, cultural beliefs and
> behaviors
> > >and styles, etc., become memetic once they've been repeated
> enough times.
> >
> > I don't buy that something can slowly shade over into being a meme.
>
> Do you agree that conscious intentions, when repeated, ultimately
> shade over
> into habit?
>
> > Just doesn't work as a way to define something that should be
> very simple.
>
> Memes are culturally shared habits as opposed to personal habits. I don't
> see what's so complicated about that.
>
> > > > Much of what I've been seeing from you has been of the
> nature of 'this
> is
> > > > a subconscious meme' because the transmitters really don't know why
> they
> > > > are transmitting it but you or someone else knows the real
> reason. I
> > > > submit that such evaluations on your part are subjective and
> unnecesarily
> > > > patronizing. Such evaluations suffer from the same flaws you use to
> label
> > > > the beliefs of others. So for example I am among those who believe
> that
> > > > your attachment to morphic fields is based upon a subconscious
> inability
> > > > to accept material determinism (even while failing to recognize that
> > > > morphic fields are just another version of it). Am I being
> subjective
> > > > and arbitrary?
> > >
> > >Yes, and the reason is that you haven't produced an argument that
> > >demonstrates conclusively that life is reducible to atoms and
> molecules.
> > >This is very important. *First* you establish that the belief in
> question
> > >cannot possibly be explained according to rational thought. *Then* you
> > >engage in a psychological analysis. If the belief is *clearly*
> irrational,
> > >we may examine the unconscious reasons for its acceptance.
> >
> > I can't deal with morphic fields, Scientology's space aliens, or
> > supernatural spirits. Sorry.
>
> No need to be sorry, you're just a bit confused here. "Morphic field" is
> shorthand for "morphogenetic field," a standard explanatory tool in
> developmental biology. The field concept is utilized to explain why one
> clump of cells becomes, say, an arm, while another clump of cells develops
> into a kidney, despite the fact that all the cells have identical
> DNA. It's
> generally believed that morphogenetic fields will ultimately be explained
> according to genes, but don't hold your breath. Many developmental
> biologists have given up this quest as a lost cause and are now fully
> committed to mathematical explanations of fields. (Morphogenetic
> fields can
> be described with the same mathematical precision as electromagnetic or
> grativational fields). The problem with this approach is that it seems to
> imply that organisms are governed by eternal equations. Of course,
> equations do not evolve. Thus Sheldrake proposed that fields are the
> product, not of genes or of equations, but of past, similar organisms. As
> organisms adapt, fields evolve. Ironically, Sheldrake's view is the most
> easily testable and therefore the most scientific of the three
> alternatives.
> (No one has ever devised a way of testing the hypothesis that organic form
> arises from DNA. It's simply assumed by those who believe it.)
>
> > >"The idea that one can examine the transfer of information
> without regard
> > >for the systems sending and receiving it has been challened on a number
> of
> > >levels... Reddy (1979) argues that this inaccurate belief is based on
> the
> > >way the English language has developed, and refers to the mistaken idea
> that
> > >information is sent and received unaltered by the acts of sending and
> > >receiving as the conduit metaphor."
> >
> > Memetics is based on the same model as genetics. It is *well*
> recognized
> > that memes are subject to more transmission errors than genes are. If a
> > meme (like baseball) is transmitted with extremely high fidelity, it is
> > because there is much redundancy and/or error correction applied to the
> > transmission.
>
> Polichak's point is that information is altered through a variety of
> cognitive factors having nothing to do with transmission errors. These
> factors need to be considered in order to understand culture.
>
> > Look, when you are concerned with mixing drinks you are not the
> slightest
> > concerned with the isotopic ratios of the atoms in the glass
> the drink is
> > being mixed in. Memetics is a way to view the spread and persistence of
> > cultural information. At the definitional level is it just not
> concerned
> > with details at this level.
>
> Memetics began as a way of avoiding social and cognitive psychology by
> simply reducing culture to its particulate elements-- memes. Cultural
> evolution, rather than being a product of human intelligence, results from
> the Darwinian competition of memes to replicate. The irony is
> that in order
> to understand why some memes are selected and others are not, we
> must study
> precisely the cognitive factors that Dawkins hoped to avoid. Of course,
> Polichak's critique is nearly five years old now, and the field may have
> matured in that time. Aunger appears to be interested in
> cognitive factors,
> and I'm glad to hear that Boyer is as well.
>
> > From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com>
> >
> > Keith wrote:
> >
> > [Dace]
> > >Oh, no, I'm saying that memes are replicated from mind to mind, while
> > >typically ideas are recreated in each mind through the process of
> > >understanding. Replication involves mimickry more than genuine
> > >understanding.
> >
> > [Keith]
> > <<Which would you say applies to a person who has internalized the
> baseball
> > meme and knows how to play it?>>
> >
> > Exactly. The fact of replication is indifferent to the
> mechanics involved.
> > Whether the meme is transmitted through brute force, like the Pledge of
> > Allegiance, or though guided inference, like someone figuring out the
> rules
> > of baseball by watching the game, the meme is still replicated.
> Or, to use
> > Dennett's Intentional Stance, the meme replicates itself.
>
> Let me give a simple example to illustrate my point. On another list I
> recently made an off-the-cuff remark about the 2003 Reith lectures, which
> concern neurology. These are truly amazing lectures that reveal, once
> again, the incredible explanatory power of pathological case studies. I
> wanted to express my gratitude to Lexie, who had directed us to
> the website,
> but I didn't express myself very clearly. Here's what I wrote:
>
> "Fascinating. Gotta love those wacky brain diseases."
>
> Needless to say, Lexie took it the wrong way. She thought I was being
> sarcastic. Now, I'm from Kansas, where sarcasm is regarded as something
> that only nasty, malevolent people from large, coastal cities
> engage in. To
> this day I often fail to recognize when people are being sarcastic, and it
> *never* occurs to me that others might interpret my own comments
> as anything
> but perfectly earnest and friendly, if not a little eccentric, which is
> really what Kansas is all about.
>
> My point is that I tried to get across a simple piece of information, but
> Lexie missed my meaning due to memetic interference. The sarcasm meme
> replicates from mind to mind because it endows greater fitness in social
> exchange (at least outside Kansas). If you realize someone is being
> sarcastic, you're much less likely to be embarrassed after having
> taken the
> comment literally. So, this is clearly a meme. But the comment
> I made was
> in no sense a meme. It was just a simple piece of durable
> information that
> would have been accurately recreated in Lexie's mind had it not
> been for the
> interference from the sarcasm meme. It's not as if my positive
> take on the
> Reith lectures is now a meme competing for survival against negative takes
> on the Reith lectures. When it comes to standard discourse, it's humans
> beings, not the information they exchange, that have agency.
>
> Ted
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 06 Jun 2003 - 23:15:39 GMT