Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA04669 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:18:10 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:18:45 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Message-ID: <3AC38A95.12146.4D1F9D@localhost> In-reply-to: <3AC34971.FA647D8E@bioinf.man.ac.uk> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 29 Mar 2001, at 15:40, Chris Taylor wrote:
> > 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).
>
If you can shell out a good chunk'o'bucks, I strongly siggest that
you purchase the latest edition of BIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY by
James W. Kalat, it is a graduate-level university text in cog-sci. I
trust that you will find it most informative; I certainly did (an earlier
edition was my text when I took the course, and I bought the later
one on my own).
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 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 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 30 2001 - 02:20:50 BST