RE: the conscious universe

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Oct 09 2000 - 12:26:23 BST

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: the conscious universe"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA00637 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 9 Oct 2000 12:29:20 +0100
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A82@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
    To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: the conscious universe
    Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 12:26:23 +0100 
    X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
    Content-Type: text/plain
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Hi Richard,

    I should just preface this by saying that I tend to reply to messages in
    order of reception, so if there's been loads of debate about this that makes
    the comments below redundant then I apologise (there are loads of posts so
    they probably are).

    Yeah, I think there's something mental going on as well, it's just that I'm
    no neuroscientist, and from some of the discussions on this list I never
    will be, so I just meant that for me to operationalise the concept in
    research terms would mean examining manifest behaviours and messages (e.g.
    media content and audiences responses to it).

    Of course, that may mean that any research I did would have a hole in it at
    the black box level of individual minds, but that's for others to fill in.

    I've stated many times before where I see a gap that fits my discipline's
    capacity to contribute to memetics, and sometimes I think the focus on
    individuals and the minds/brain processes underplays what I see as the
    central element of memetics, which is not simply about how an idea gets from
    one mind to another, but how social movements/trends originate and spread.
    That means that as important as examining information/ideational transfer
    between individuals is, the main point is how an idea spreads through large
    masses of people. I think there are social psychology elements here, which
    would involve things like group and organisational communication (for which
    of course there's already lots of theories and research) as well as mass
    communication (again subject to lots of theories and research that needs to
    be addressed).

    What was worrying me, I guess, was the degree to which a non-neuroscientific
    or non-psychological approach would be dismissed out of hand, or perhaps
    even that memetics may split into different disciplinary traditions,
    exploring very different aspects of what began as a relatively
    straightforward idea (however flawed). On the other hand this may simply
    make it a perfectly acceptable focal variable field, useable in all sorts of
    frameworks and contexts.

    Vincent

    > ----------
    > From: Richard Brodie
    > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Sent: Friday, October 6, 2000 3:08 pm
    > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Subject: RE: the conscious universe
    >
    > Vincent wrote:
    >
    > <<your designation of memes as cultural
    > artefacts best suits me, because it allows for social scientific research
    > methodologies (i.e. testing of manifest social phenomena, be it pokemon,
    > or
    > particular news stories that run and run).>>
    >
    > While there are strong methodological arguments for creating definitions
    > that support easy research, there are two problems with defining "meme" as
    > cultural artifact. In the first place, that's not the definition that the
    > coiners of the term had in mind and so it causes confusion versus using a
    > different word (like artifacts) to refer to such artifacts. 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. Mental programming influences behavior, which in
    > turn influences the mental programming of others. 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.
    >
    >
    > Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com www.memecentral.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 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 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 12:30:51 BST