Re: the conscious universe

From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Sun Oct 08 2000 - 02:39:03 BST

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: the conscious universe"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA04018 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 8 Oct 2000 02:36:56 +0100
    Message-Id: <200010080134.VAA17800@mail4.lig.bellsouth.net>
    From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 20:39:03 -0500
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: the conscious universe
    In-reply-to: <007d01c03065$a5671400$d663b8d0@default>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b)
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    From: "Lawrence de Bivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: Re: the conscious universe
    Date sent: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 09:51:03 -0400
    Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    >
    > > On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 07:08:48AM -0700, Richard Brodie wrote:
    > > > ... the meme per its Dawkins/Dennett/Brodie
    > > > definition, as mental information...
    > >
    > > While not necessarily wanting to open this argument up again, I have,
    > > as usual, to point out that "mental information" implies a subjective
    > > phenomenon, while Dawkins and Dennett view memes as objective, neural
    > > information patterns.
    >
    > I don't see a contradiction here: all 'ideas' held by a person must have
    > some neural basis, if our understanding of how brains work is remotely
    > accurate. By the term 'information' I take Richard to mean that the idea has
    > cognitive or behavioral significance, i.e. that the idea makes a difference
    > ("Information is the difference that makes the difference." - G. Bateson).
    >
    > The neural basis of ideas, I would suggest, is no more significant for memes
    > than it is for non-memetic ideas, and so I find the neural elements of memes
    > not particularly or intrinsically interesting when it comes to studying
    > memes and their workings.
    >
    The difference is one of perspective - first-person vs. third-person -
    upon the same phenomenon. My ideas are objective to me, as
    they are objects of my mental attention/intention. That which is
    called subjective is objective to the subject. There is no absolute
    objectivity; only intersubjective agreement.
    >
    > <snip>
    > > I think few would seriously suggest that artifacts are memes, but
    > > artifactual encoding of memes is another matter, and can be considered
    > > a subset of behavioural encoding.
    >
    > Agreed, artifacts need not have memetic content or capability, but can.
    > Sometimes the memetic content --of those artifacts that have it--is there
    > accidentally, sometimes it is installed there deliberately by those who have
    > created the artifacts (e.g. B. Fuller's dymaxion concepts, or P. Soleri's
    > Arcosanti-related ideas).
    >
    > Lawrence de Bivort
    > The Memetics Group
    >
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 2b29 : Sun Oct 08 2000 - 02:38:08 BST