Re: Gemetica and the creation of 'gemes'.

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Tue Feb 06 2001 - 15:30:07 GMT

  • Next message: William Benzon: "Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA15947 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:26:41 GMT
    From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:30:07 -0600
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: Gemetica and the creation of 'gemes'.
    Message-ID: <3A7FC41F.2141.2B7AAD7@localhost>
    In-reply-to: <20010206134429.A757@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    References: <3A7F9ECE.26512.225DFB6@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 06:50:54AM -0600
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On 6 Feb 2001, at 13:44, Robin Faichney wrote:

    > On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 06:50:54AM -0600, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
    > > On 6 Feb 2001, at 10:15, Robin Faichney wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 06,
    > 2001 at 10:45:58AM +0100, Ruis, J.J.C.M. wrote: > > > Dear members, >
    > > > > > > We differentiate 'genes' and 'memes'. > > > > > > I define
    > 'genes' as physical/material sets of information with the > > >
    > intention/goal to natural reproduction. > > > > > > I define 'memes'
    > as ideal/virtual sets of information with the > > > intention/goal to
    > cultural reproduction. > > > > How can "sets of information" have
    > intentions and/or goals? > > > I agree. It is the container (emergent
    > self) which has the intentions > and goals, which motivates its choice
    > for and against some (but > not all) of the prospectively contained
    > informational sets.
    >
    > That's one way of looking at it. There are many others. None is
    > objectively, inherently superior: meaning is only consistent within a
    > language game, and both context and goal are required to determine
    > what's right.
    >
    I do not accept the paradox of absolute relativism, where no answer
    is any better or worse than any other. Rather, I accept that tests
    for internal consistency, closeness of consilience with contiguous
    truths, and the degree of verisimilitude with the referent to which
    the answer corresponds allow one to construct a fitness landscape
    in which, while no truth-claim can be granted absolute certainty of
    correctness (the peaks do not reach to heaven of inerrancy), they
    can be proven false (the valleys reach to the hell of error) or else
    they are not empirically testable against the territory or against any
    neighbors which lie upon it, and therefore belong off the map, in the
    realm of belief. We are left then with provisional truths of greater or
    less probability, proven falsehoods, and the meaningless with
    respect to empirical reality (due to being referentless there).
    > --
    > Robin Faichney
    > robin@reborntechnology.co.uk
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 : Tue Feb 06 2001 - 15:28:48 GMT