Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA06918 (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 11:45:31 +0100 Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:30:26 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Message-ID: <20010330113026.B1013@reborntechnology.co.uk> 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> <3AC34971.FA647D8E@bioinf.man.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <3AC34971.FA647D8E@bioinf.man.ac.uk>; from Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk on Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 03:40:49PM +0100 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 03:40:49PM +0100, 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).
That's quite interesting, but how do you react to this: the main problem
I see memetics as having, in becoming a science generally, or taking
the place of psychology in particular, is complexity. Modelling of
generics, as you describe, could be quite fascinating -- I've often been
tempted to invest some time in it myself -- but do you understand the
difficulties of making specific predictions about real non-linear systems?
It's fairly common just now to assume that quantum computers, when they
finally become usable, will be capable of absolutely anything, but surely
a moment's sober reflection would change that attitude. The resources
required to actually run a program can be quite trivial compared to those
involved in designed the algorithms and finding and inputting the data.
I don't think memetic prediction will ever -- and I mean *ever* --
get within light years of what the hard sciences can do now.
> > 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.
Joe offered you a reference on this. I graduated 20 years ago, and have
done nothing in psych since. However, what I do find interesting is the
use made of psychologists and psychiatrists by such hard-headed types as
the police, in criminal investigations. (I watched a TV show on this
last night.) They seem to think that generally (obviously not always)
they get their money's worth. Hard science it ain't, but if it works...
-- Robin Faichney Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)=============================================================== 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 - 11:54:35 BST