From: Kate Distin (memes@distin.co.uk)
Date: Sat 03 Dec 2005 - 12:12:30 GMT
Ben Dawson wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 11:52:51 +0000, you wrote:
>
>
>>Davi Johnson wrote:
>
>
>>>Things like songs, making shoes and chipping rock (or
>>>hanging Xmas trees upside down--just read about this in the
>>>AJC and it screamed "meme" to me) seem to me to be
>>>more "material" than abstract concepts or ideas, easier to
>>>understand as concrete practices. For the abstract ideas, I
>>>am stuck on how to identify what might define them
>>>as "meme."
>>>(They definitely influence behavior, and they do seem to
>>>replicate).
>>>
>>
>>
>>There isn't any essential difference between the memes in all of these
>>cases - all are portions of information - but some have more concrete
>>phenotypic effects than others. Memes like equality have their
>>'essence' pinpointed by dictionaries, which carefully delineate these
>>memes' varying usages and content across time and context.
>>
>>What defines them, and any other meme, as 'meme' is that they are
>>portions of representational content. In other words they are
>>representions of a particular chunk of information.
>>
>>Information can be complex as well as simple. This is reflected in the
>>varying lengths of definition of words in dictionaries; in the density
>>of notes on a stave; in the number of symbols in a mathematical or
>>chemical equation; etc.
>>
>>Kate
>>
>
>
> Kate -
>
> I am interested in this "representational content" you frequently
> refer to. This is the one of the parts of your book I found the most
> difficult to grasp, although I think I now understand it correctly.
>
> I'm going to include a section on your viewpoints in my presentation
> next week, but can I check that I have in fact understood you
> correctly. This is my take on what I've read so far:
>
>
> A meme consists of some representational content; that is, information
> which can be represented. A meme is simply a representation of a
> portion of information, which may be realised internally within the
> mind, or externally.
>
> (Q: in it's internal realisation, am I correct in thinking that you
> mean that it is realised, as Dawkins puts it "as a structure in the
> nervous systems of individual men the world over"? ie as an actual
> physical structure inside the human brain, albeit in a form that is
> unknown to us?)
>
I'm not a neurophysiologist so I don't know what goes on, physically
speaking, inside the human brain. I can see how my words are
represented on paper or a screen, and hear how they are represented when
I say them, but I've no idea how they are actually represented inside my
head. What happens is physical, yes, I'd agree. I'm not a dualist.
But that's about as far as I'm qualified to go.
> It's external realisation is in the form of books and blueprints.
>
> These two types of representation support each other. A meme could not
> easily spread from passive copies of itself alone. A tune, represented
> in a book as a musical score would not spread if the book was never
> read and nobody was familiar with the tune. On the other hand, if
> memes only existed internally, with no external representations, memes
> in their present cultural environment would not be as fecund. To use
> your words, "external representations play an essential role in
> memetic replication".
>
> A meme has a phenotypic effect, in the same way as the gene has a
> phenotypic effect in the body which it builds. A meme’s phenotypic
> effects are internal and external.
>
> The internal phenotypic effect is in the thoughts and behaviour of the
> person. For example, the meme for Santa Claus could affect the child's
> mind by making the child feel happy or excited.
>
> The external phenotypic effect is realised on the environment. You
> give the examples of bridges, forms of poetry, methods of central
> heating, models of the double helix...
>
>
> Would you say this is an accurate summary?
>
> Ben
>
>
Yes, I'd say that is very accurate. If this is your level of
understanding of your subject then I'd say you have nothing to worry
about in the question-and-answer session after your talk. You know a
lot more about your topic than your audience does and if any of them
does ask you a question that really makes you rethink something then
that's very valuable in the long run (increasing your understanding);
and I'd imagine that in the short run it can only improve how you're
assessed if you can enter into an open-minded discussion about that
particular point. It certainly won't serve to undermine your overall
credibility, as you clearly have a good grasp of your subject.
Hope it goes well!
Kate
===============================================================
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 03 Dec 2005 - 12:31:16 GMT