Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA19538 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:58:28 GMT Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001116183241.034f5a60@pop3.htcomp.net> X-Sender: mmills@pop3.htcomp.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 18:52:27 -0600 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Mark Mills <mmills@htcomp.net> Subject: RE: stored mental entities (and Mayr on memes) In-Reply-To: <200011162356.PAA30384@mail22.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Scott,
At 03:56 PM 11/16/00 -0800, you wrote:
>If these "neural memes" are based on memory and the processes of encoding,
>storage, and recall within individual brains, what differentiates them
>theoretically from similar conceptions* such as mnemons or engrams as
>memory traces?
Meme can be strongly linked to 'gene' and suggests evolutionary
aspects. Neither mnemons nor engrams do the same.
>Quoting Mayr on the meme: (bq)"It seems to me that this word is nothing
>but an unnecessary synonym of the term "concept"."(eq)
As the majority use the term, I agree with Mayr. Blackmore's use of the
term is an excellent example of meme=concept.
>Would, following Mayr, conceptual evolution be preferable to memetic
>evolution?
Again, the memetic allusion to genetics is preferable. Additionally, I
suspect the neural-meme to be much more primitive than a 'concept.' A
human concept would probably require millions of neural-memes. My model of
a neural meme is something so basic that it exists in relatively simple
neural systems.
A gene is not a protein. A meme is not a concept.
> >I think there is a subtle difference between 'mental entities' and 'neural
> >entities.' I have no idea how one documents 'mental entities' in
> >repeatable experiments. 'Neural entities' require repeatable experiments.
> >
> >I guess the focus on repeatable neural experiments allows me to ignore the
> >'theory of mind' debate. I admit I have and use one, it just shouldn't
> >blind me to the implications of repeatable neural experiments.
> >
> >
>The problem is how a meme, engram, or mnemon can be detected within the
>workings of the mindbrain so that it can be studied as an observable
>phenomenon.
Actually, I don't think it very important to do more than detect the
'tracks' of memes for now. Until very recently, that was all we could do
for genes. There seem to be two tracks, neural investigation and computer
simulations. Regarding the later, The Journal of Memetics will soon be
publishing an issue on memetics and computer simulation.
Mark
http://www.htcomp.net/markmills
===============================================================
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 : Fri Nov 17 2000 - 00:59:59 GMT