Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA03189 (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 16:11:08 +0100 From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Perishable artifacts (from: Re: the conscious universe) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 08:08:21 -0700 Message-ID: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJMEFAFIAA.richard@brodietech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <019a01c02ff4$389098e0$7e21e7d8@proftim> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Tim wrote:
<<I'm
specifically interested in the variation and selection aspects of "how
memetic evolution really works" and how you see that play itself out>>
I'm interested in that too. I kind of thought I explained my views on that
in my 250-page book so I'm unsure exactly what level of detail you are
looking for.
<< 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.>>
Agreed. Artifacts are very important to study, as are words and behaviors. I
don't know any way to get into the mind and study the raw memes.
[RB]
<<<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.>>
I don't see this at all. My friends who create art, music, and so on are
influenced by a lifetime of experiences and tend to innovate rather than
duplicate artifacts. I think you could look at, for instance, knock-offs of
designer clothes as self-replicating artifacts. Or the Eiffel tower. But
again, I don't think this explains as much of cultural evolution as the
reverse, that people create and behave based on the sum total of their
memes.
<< 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?>>
Actually, I think as time goes on neither memes nor artifacts will be as
important as complex mind viruses composed of both. Anything can be a
replicator if it functions as one.
Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com www.liontales.com
===============================================================
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 - 16:12:20 BST