From: Scott Chase (ecphoric@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed 18 Jun 2003 - 04:51:57 GMT
>From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
>Subject: RE: Precision of replication
>Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:27:06 -0700
>
>I'm talking about the meme of the word "brain", not all the associations
>individuals may have with that meme.
>
Well its those associations that exist in the brains of individuals
surrounding the *word* brain that are the crux of "in the mind" that Wade
harps upon. Somebody might see a clump of tissue with convolutions where
somebody else realizes these convolutions are associated with words like
sulcus and gyrus and that there's something "in there" called a hippocampus.
If you give up the fight for the identity of that web of associations
between individuals haven't you conceded more than you wish to Wade's
behavioristic emphasis on venue?
Saying that the word "brain" is identical between individuals and is
replicated because it is spelled the same is rather banal is it not? That's
a cheap sort of identical replication that doesn't pass muster. What's so
fundamentaly intriguing about the identical spelling of words that
linguistics can't handle? Brain may be defined in a dictionary and each of
us can read that definition and come way with our own understadings of the
word given our respective backgrounds. Can anything more than the gist of
that definition be said to be anything close to similar (versus identical)
across individuals a month or so down the road when asked to repeat it
verbatim? Then come the matrix of assoctions that surround this concept of
the "brain". Yes, the spelling is identical. I'll give you that. Th
definitoion in all that copies of a particular artificat (the book known as
a dictionary) are identical too. Speling and book level definition are
"selfsame". Now let's get into the ways this concept *may* be represented
inside the ead. Is the identical spelling represented *exactly* the same
between my brain and yours at the neural level?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
>Of Scott Chase
>Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 8:18 PM
>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: Precision of replication
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
> >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> >Subject: Precision of replication
> >Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 22:59:49 -0400
> >
> >
> >Wade said:
> > > Replication, mutation, and selection.>>
> >
> >
> >Richard said:
> > > There is no replication because you have similar, not identical,
> > > performances. Replication means identical. The four-note motif, on a
> > > relative scale, is the most identifiable meme in Beethoven's Fifth.
>Your
> > > "observational tests" depend upon memes in the minds of the
> > > observers. Also,
> > > culture evolves in many other ways besides observers becoming
> > > performers. A
> > > reader of "Taming of the Shrew" may write a musical version which is
> >then
> > > performed by an entirely different set of people who read the book.
> >Also,
> > > you have far too much of your mechanism in your vague,
>all-encompassing
> > > "venue", which may as well be God for all its scientific usefulness.
> > >
> > > You are essentially saying that, given time and a culture, people will
> > > behave similarly to the way they've seen others behave, but different.
> >You
> > > in no way explain these differences or predict direction. It's
> > > not a model.
> >
> >
> >In our view of memetic dissemination, the replication need not, and will
> >rarely be identical. Yet we call it memetic and this view seems to work
> >well
> >in our work.
> >
> >Why is dissemination nor identical? Because each person (or group of
> >people,
> >for we also think of memes as being able to disseminate to and through
> >groups) will have his own criteria for acceptance which may require some
> >modification of the meme prior to acceptance. So as they disseminate,
>memes
> >also tend to mutate. The 'power' of the meme lies in part in its ability
>to
> >withstand such mutation, i.e. to be accepted whole and as close to
> >identically by the recipient.
> >
> >Notwithstanding this lack of identical dissemination, prediction of
> >acceptance is possible, particularly if one can also model the acceptance
> >criteria of the recipient. Such modeling is possible, but we do not
> >consider
> >the methods for doing so to be part of the field of memetics.
> >
> >Does this fit with your thinking, Richard? Wade? Others?
> >
> >
>I could be misreading him, in which case there's been no replication
>bewtween our minds, but itseems Richard is holding that replication implies
>identity, not similarity. He has written a book on memes so is an
>authority.
>
>The so-called "meme" of the "brain" is hardly identical between people. The
>people may spell brain the same, but what the word means to a trained
>neuroscientist is probably different than what it means to a cultural
>studies major or some swordfisherman from Cape Cod. The concept of
>"brain"probably varies for an individual through their lifetime, say from
>their first glance at a picture in a elememtary school textbookto perhaps
>what they learn in colege psych classes to late what hey may have long
>forgotten from these classes due to disuse.I fail to see anything
>sufficiently "selfsame" (obligatory Deesian lingo) across individuals or
>within indiviaduals to qualify as beng identitical. Similarity could be a
>stretch in itself.
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
>http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
>
>===============================================================
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
===============================================================
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 : Wed 18 Jun 2003 - 05:00:12 GMT