Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA02457 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:44:30 +0100 Message-ID: <3AC34971.FA647D8E@bioinf.man.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:40:49 +0100 From: Chris Taylor <Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk> Organization: University of Manchester X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D2B@inchna.stir.ac.uk> <20010329110130.B535@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3AC31511.ED22A7C2@bioinf.man.ac.uk> <20010329125905.A1365@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3AC32FB1.C13D8990@bioinf.man.ac.uk> <20010329141837.A547@reborntechnology.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> If you're actually getting there, not just dreaming of doing so, you
> should have something to share with us, shouldn't you?
Yeah, eventually, it's just a bit vague at the mo. It requires a fitness
definition for a pattern which is entirely context-dependent -
essentially if a thing can interact (oh god I'm in the shit when it
comes to terminology) with its potential interaction partners more
appropriately, or with a wider or 'better' (in the sense of being
themselves more important in the overall network) set of partners, it is
fitter. This is deliberately generic, because any pattern is potentially
valid given the appropriate environment (of other patterns).
> > Psychology is now where biology was 100 years ago. Biology now is where
> > physics was 100 years ago.
> These are great tabloid headlines, but (like tabloid headlines) they're
> not going to convince anyone who is not already inclined to believe it.
> In fact, I'd say, strictly speaking, these statements are meaningless,
> because these disciplines are not directly comparable.
> > Psychology says f.a. about mechanisms,
> Modern cognitive psychology has a great deal to say about mechanisms
> -- in fact, that's about all it says. Have you ever looked into it?
> Let me guess...
OK so I was a bit vociferous about psychology/psychiatry, but you show
me something from either (especially cognitive psychology if you see
that as the closest to what I'm on about) that isn't just a story
(however convincing) and I'll change my mind. I'm not anti it as such
(obviously that would be cretinous) but I don't think it has real
explanatory power because it is a rationalisation of the good old bag of
facts without much of an underlying premise (mine is that there is no
reason to expect that information in a mind would organise very
differently from that in any other complex+sticky system, i.e.
ecosystems, societies but not the weather).
In summary, phsychology is the best to date, I just think it's not
really very near to connecting the bottom up stuff to the top down
stuff. Also I don't think there is a hierarchy of sciences
(phys-biol-psych or whatever) some have just been at it longer than
others, and some have easier subject matter (the physicists). Mind
science has to be the hardest because you can't do the really kick-arse
experiments (raising kids in total sensory deprivation etc.).
Plus the fact that I've never come across anyone post-therapy who wasn't
just either counselled (and therefore minus the weight) or trained
(cog.psy. I believe) into not being the person they were (which is fine
for patching people up, but not so hot for explaining why they're the
way they are). BTW I'll say now that I'm no psychology expert (you
spotted that huh), but I'd rather (now that all that Buddhism stuff is
dying) argue about theories than comparing kudos. For a start, I'd
mention the sociological concept of functionalism - it doesn't matter
what was 'intended', what work works, however it does it. This is nice
because it captures some of the context dependency that is (I reckon)
rather important for a meme-based theory of mind.
Not being an expert should not exclude you from converstion unless the
other person can't be arsed summarising what they think (which
admittedly would be fair enough, if unfortunate).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Taylor (chris@bioinf.man.ac.uk)
http://bioinf.man.ac.uk/ »people»chris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
===============================================================
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 : Thu Mar 29 2001 - 15:47:18 BST