Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id FAA04839 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 05:30:27 GMT From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:32:59 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Are there any memes out there? Message-ID: <3AA816AB.18772.5C59DB@localhost> In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.20010308230640.0080d330@mailhost.rongenet.sk.ca> References: <3AA6FC7A.12625.1617933@localhost> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 8 Mar 2001, at 23:06, Lloyd Robertson wrote:
> At 03:28 AM 08/03/01 -0600, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 07:21:47PM -0600, Lloyd Robertson wrote:
> >> > Interesting, until recently I was of the opinion that memes
> >> > existed both inside and outside the head, in different forms. Now
> >> > I am tending to believe that memes do not exist in either place -
> >> > artifacts, behaviors and neural patterning are all phenotypes.
> >> > What do you think?
> >>
> >> I belong to the camp that believes it's generally misleading and
> >> unproductive to seek very close parallels between genetics and
> >> memetics, but in fact this is not too far from my view -- I see
> >> memes as *encoded* in artifacts, behaviour and neural patterns, so
> >> to view these as memetic phenotypes -- memotypes, if you like -- is
> >> maybe not *too* misleading.
> >>
> >There can be no memes (messages or meanings) separate from
> >carrier and code, or physical substrate and its configuration. This
> >applies equally to neural patterns, behaviors (including speech
> >acts), and artifacts, including but not restricted to texts (for
> >instance, tools stand for their uses).
> >> --
> >From a purely materialist viewpoint you are absolutely correct, Joe.
> >But an
> intelligent fish might equally conclude that no existance is possible
> outside of his oceanic universe. I am not using this analogy to
> justify some religious fantasy, just to remind us to remain tentative
> in our conclusions.
>
> Now we certainly cannot be aware of any memes except by their
> memotype. On the other hand an artist "in flow" often has the
> sensation that his hands are being "other directed" or that the words
> just have to go in a particlar direction, the logic of the words, not
> the mind, dictate a result. A memetic explanatiion would be a a set of
> memes attract other compatible memes while repelling others. The new
> memes simply come to our awareness as they attach themselves to the
> existing complex.
>
Memetic mutation, innovation and/or creation can be subliminally influenced,
and involve preconscious and subconscious elements. We CAN consciously
select and create our memes, but it is not necessary that it always
be so. Dennett would agree with the concept of memes struggling
to breach the awareness barrier.
>
> Another example would involve the development of self. A poor
> self-concept attracts other negative memes that reinforce and
> intensify the original while repelling positive memes. The individual
> does not consciously decide to create a negative self-concept. It just
> develops. Personality, thus developed can be changed but only with
> great effort.
>
This is natural selection at work. Negative self-concept memes
would be more consonant with the cognitive environment all memes
are presented to by the environment. Positive ones might be
selected, but it requires an effort of will to override what better fits a
preexisting tendency.
>
> While we can say that most of these memes come from other people or
> artifacts the fact is new memes may be generated without this
> influence and without the conscious effort of the individual to create
> same. So, without saying that there is an ethereal mememtic plane of
> existence somewhere we have to allow for the possibility that either
> memes may exist in some form beyond our conscious awareness or that
> they have some mechanism of spontaineous generation.
>
> I am suggesting that we look at this a bit more.
>
You said it yourself - in SOME FORM. That form must be
instantiated in some patterned configuration of some matter/energy
substrate. Even both the worlds inside and outside Plato's
benighted Cave analogy were not amorphous, and even Plato's
Forms, as mistaken as the idea was, possessed form.
>
> Lloyd
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Fri Mar 09 2001 - 05:32:44 GMT