From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Wed 18 Jun 2003 - 05:31:02 GMT
From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Precision of replication
Date sent: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 01:06:15 -0400
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
>
>
>
> >From: joedees@bellsouth.net
> >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >Subject: Re: Precision of replication
> >Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:35:42 -0500
> >
> >From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
> >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >Subject: Re: Precision of replication
> >Date sent: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:18:07 -0400
> >Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >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.
> > >
> >What is closer to identical, although itself not entirely identical
> >(nothing being absolute - on principle), is the relationship between
> >the neural meme-encodings and the cognitive gestalts, or complexures,
> >to which they accommodate and are assimilated. This is what allows
> >both of them to produce transmitting/communicating behavior by an
> >actor that is recognizeable by an observer/recipient as an encoding
> >of the selfsame meme (just as I could recognize the message "If you
> >but believe in Jesus, your soul will be saved" whether it was
> >transmitted/communicated via one language or another - say, English
> >and ASL (American Sign Language) - even though each involves entirely
> >different performances - if I were coversant in decoding both
> >encoding forms). And why? Because the selfsame meme/message is in
> >each case learned, stored, accessed, intended and meant.
> >
> And yet what do Jesus, salavation, and soul mean across inviduals who
> are as different as say, a born again Christian, and atheist, a
> Satanist and a Hindu. Heck, I'm trying to visualize Jesus, but he may
> have been blond haired and blue eyed or had African features for all I
> know. I'm trying to figure out what it would mean to be salved and I
> surely don't want to get into that "soul" mess. All these question
> arise, likely, from the web of associtions these words carry along due
> to my personal history which differs from yours. How selfsame are my
> associations to yours I wonder.
>
What matters is whether you are prompted to replicate/proliferate the
meme in turn. As I said before, identical is an unattainable absolute,
cognitive-gestalt speaking. But, although the concept of being saved
by a belief in the divinity of Jesus is a bit different for each believer, the
idea of attempting to save others via communicating the concept to
others has historically, albeit, to my mind, regrettably, considering all
the unfortunate (and itself variable between both individual and groups
of believers - see denominations and heresies) baggage it has carried
in its train, shown remarkable durability across individual variations,
and the very idea of heresies is itself a normalizing hook attempting to
enforce, with mixed success, uniformity across divergent historical
epochs, populations and understandings.
> _________________________________________________________________ > >
> 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 > > > > > >
>
> _________________________________________________________________ MSN
> 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Wed 18 Jun 2003 - 05:38:10 GMT