Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA28977 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:04:02 +0100 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:00:26 +0100 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: memetics and knowledge Message-ID: <20000917140026.A2429@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <20000915104917.A1648@reborntechnology.co.uk> <200009162002.QAA18143@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200009162002.QAA18143@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 03:07:37PM -0500 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 03:07:37PM -0500, Joe E. Dees wrote:
>
> > In a message I've deleted, Joe said something like:
> >
> > If you can't say it, you don't know it.
> >
> Saying it does not mean that the other person automatically gets it
> (some people just aren't too bright), just that (s)he in principle can
> (that it semantically adheres to the state or process of affairs being
> described).
Surely, for the traditional concept of knowledge, whether the other
person gets it is irrelevant? Unless this is some kind of mystificatory
backtrack? :-)
> > This is simply wrong, but it opens up an interesting topic: the distinction
> > between memetic and non-memetic knowledge.
> >
> > Intellectual knowledge is not the only sort -- there is also experiential
> > knowledge, that gained through experience, rather than verbally or via
> > other media, from books, parents, teachers and friends.
> >
> Experience is the primordial source for all that verbal and written
> and other media knowledge passed on.
Yup. So?
> > Now, there is obviously a large overlap between intellectual and
> > experiential knowledge, in that much of what we learn through direct
> > experience we can verbalise and pass on to others, and much of what we
> > learn from others, we could have learned through experience.
> >
> Bingo. Perhaps all. But that is the crux of the contention.
Indeed.
> > But there remains a residue of experiential knowledge that is not
> > communicable. Can you ride a bicycle? Could you teach someone else
> > to do so using only words, so that the first time they mounted one,
> > they could display the same level of skill as yourself?
> >
> See below, before you prejudge what I can and cannot verbally do.
> >
> > Obviously not. We are talking about motor skills here, which can be
> > learned only through experience. And to say that this is not knowledge
> > is mere semantic quibbling. If I can swing an axe through, say, 135
> > degrees, the head travelling perhaps a couple of metres, to split a log,
> > hitting it within a centimetre of the point I was aiming at, then I know
> > how to use that axe! (At least, in the log-splitting context. I could
> > actually do that, a few years ago, but I'm sadly out of practice now.)
> >
> If you described to me the series of interconnected motions you
> performed in order to do this, I could most likely learn to do it
> myself, but even if I couldn't, you could still describe it, at least
> much better than someone who does not possess, i.e. has not
> learned, the skill.
Of course I could describe it. The question is whether it's possible
to communicate *all* of that knowledge, or, as I say, you would always
require some practice, to achieve the same skill level, because some of
the knowledge is incommunicable.
> > But, to sum up, some knowledge is non-intellectual, and non-memetic,
> > and our memetic theorising, and general intellectualization as well,
> > will be sadly lacking, if we forget that. I'd go so far as to say that
> > it's the ground upon which everything else is built. Unless it's based
> > upon, and ultimately returns to, actual experience, it's sheer hot air.
> >
> How To Ride A Bike:
> Get on the bike with one foor remaining on the ground and the
> other one on a pedal, with you hands hpldong the handgrips. Push
> off with the ground foot while pushing forward and down with the
> pedal foot, then balance your body on the before-behind vertical
> plane as you steer forward (by keeping the handgrips equidistant
> from you) and pushing the pedals with both feet (they will describe
> circular paths). If you need to turn, pull the handgrip on the side
> you need to turn towards closer to your body (the other will move
> farther away) as you bank your body into the turn. To stop, either
> squeeze the handbrake (on some models) or pedal backwards to
> engage the footbrake( on others).
> See? It is easy to tell someone how to ride a bike (which is
> different that making them immediately able to do so).
You just conceded my point, Joe. Glad you agree.
Just to put this in context: I'm saying that mystical "knowledge" is
like that, in that experience is absolutely essential, though verbal
hints, tips, and nudges in the right direction are of course possible,
and probably even necessary in most cases.
-- Robin Faichney=============================================================== 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 2b29 : Sun Sep 17 2000 - 14:05:11 BST