Re: The Tipping Point

From: Robin Faichney (robin@ii01.org)
Date: Tue Apr 17 2001 - 13:13:47 BST

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: Is Suicide Contagious? A Case Study in Applied Memetics"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA07546 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:47:08 +0100
    Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:13:47 +0100
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: The Tipping Point
    Message-ID: <20010417131347.A1691@ii01.org>
    References: <3AD891ED.20672.5777E8@localhost>; <20010415144928.B787@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3AD9C5BE.20188.2588FA@localhost>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Disposition: inline
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i
    In-Reply-To: <3AD9C5BE.20188.2588FA@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 04:01:02PM -0500
    From: Robin Faichney <robin@ii01.org>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 04:01:02PM -0500, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
    > On 15 Apr 2001, at 14:49, Robin Faichney wrote:
    >
    > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 06:07:41PM -0500, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
    > > Those 'individual grains' of yours are supported by other
    > > grains, > which are supported by others, eventually involving the
    > > entire pile.
    > >
    > > And how, exactly, does that statement of the obvious support your
    > > claim that individual grains are affected by the tipping point?
    > >
    > As all is affected by each, each is in turn affected by all.

    Surely each is directly affected only by its immediate neighbours, and
    the tipping point phenomenon is entirely explicable in terms of such
    direct interactions.
     
    > > There is a very clear train of causation, not only in the TV itself,
    > > but even in your description, from internal components to picture and
    > > sound. NOT vice versa! I think you'd be wise to drop this metaphor,
    > > Joe.
    > >
    > That is because, unlike the TV, we are dynamically recursive, and
    > feed back (and forward). A TV cannot change the picture sent to it
    > by a camera, but we can take actions which result in perceptual
    > change, just as all perception involves some action.

    So you agree it's not a very good metaphor.

    -- 
    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 : Tue Apr 17 2001 - 13:50:13 BST