Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA01698 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 7 Oct 2000 01:00:03 +0100 Message-ID: <019a01c02ff4$389098e0$7e21e7d8@proftim> From: "Tim Rhodes" <proftim@speakeasy.org> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: Perishable artifacts (from: Re: the conscious universe) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:17:09 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Richard wrote:
<<<[snip] Secondly, many have seen the value in examining the meme per its
Dawkins/Dennett/Brodie definition, as mental information, even though it may
be much more difficult to acquire data, because they think that definition
is closer to how memetic evolution really works.>>>
Could you expound on this a little more, Richard? (moreso than below) I'm
specifically interested in the variation and selection aspects of "how
memetic evolution really works" and how you see that play itself out, from
your unique and well-informed perspective.
I think, where this question is concerned, the devil is going to be in the
details. I may be able to understand your viewpoint better if you'd be
willing to get down to the nitty-gritty specifics a little more often and
expressly.
<<<Mental programming influences behavior, which in turn influences the
mental programming of others.>>>
How? Again, details.
From my perspective I see each of those behaviors as a cultural artifact (or
G-meme), albeit a highly transitory one in a great many cases.
For example:
If ones mental programming influences one to tell a story, that story -- the
specific words chosen and spoken, which may hang in the air for but an
instant -- is the fleeting, but important artifact of interest to me
regarding the evolution of the meme associated with it.
<<<The subset of cultural evolution that is determined by the
inverse-artifact influences mind, which goes out and creates another copy of
the artifact-seems to be a small subset.>>>
Can you explain why you see this as "a small subset"? And, more
importantly, within which arenas of the memetic landscape?
As I see it, where it is possible that it may be a smaller subset within the
community of individuals who consume culture, it is nevertheless the *major*
set within the communities of those actively engaged in the creating &
manufacturing of culture -- to whom the consumer is largely seen as simply
another selection pressure.
A question for you, Richard:
If you were to adopt a mindset that sees "behaviors" as "cultural artifacts
with minimal half-lives", then, having that viewpoint, would you still
maintain that this particular area comprised only "a small subset" cultural
evolution?
-Tim Rhodes
===================
Tim Rhodes
memes@sil2k.org
Eyes, Ears & Memes, SIL2K
Strategic Improv Laboratories 2000
www.sil2k.org
===================
===============================================================
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 : Sat Oct 07 2000 - 01:01:17 BST