Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA01711 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 4 Dec 2001 07:42:27 GMT Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 23:37:30 -0800 Message-Id: <200112040737.fB47bUF24773@mail5.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116) X-Originating-Ip: [216.76.255.22] From: "Joe Dees" <joedees@addall.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Wilkins on the meme:engram relation Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
> <AaronLynch@aol.com>Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:30:58 EST
> Re: Wilkins on the meme:engram relation memetics@mmu.ac.ukReply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
>In a message dated 12/3/2001 2:01:22 AM Central Standard Time, Joe Dees
><joedees@addall.com> writes:
>
>
>> even now, there is much debate as to what evolution generally is, with
>some
>> objections being more reasonable (gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium),
>and
>> some less (Lamarckianism, morphic resonance, etc.). This process is itself
>> evolutionary, and every objection voiced adds to the evolution of our
>> understanding, either by the inclusion of valid ideas or the exclusion of
>> unsound ones. Why should we be perturbed by such an evolution, which was
>> much more robust in the infancy of evolutionary understanding generally,
>> taking place before our eyes and with our active participation, concerning
>> memetics specifically? If we truly acknowledge the ubiquity of the
>> evolutionary process in all things natural and cultural, we should nod
>rather
>> than flinch at its inevitable precession in this matter.
>>
>
>Hi Joe.
>
>Interestingly, Darwinian evolution managed to be introduced over a period of
>many years before the word "gene" was introduced. The term even followed
>Mendel's work by decades. People who might otherwise have been distracted by
>a quickly introduced neologism were given a chance to see that there was a
>cogent theory even without the word.
>
>In the case of quarks, a mathematically well-defined theoretical construct
>was formed first, and then a neologism applied to it. The definition has been
>generalized in well-described ways due to theoretical and empirical work
>since then. This sort of evolution has been constrained by the methods of
>science. Evolution is part of the process of science. Having evolution in
>science is not a problem as long as it proceeds within certain constraints
>that make science science.
>
>In the case of "meme," Dawkins did not give an explicit definition, let alone
>a mathematical definition or a definition ready to use in mathematical
>analysis. He does not even call attention to works that have event diagrams,
>such as Cloak's 1973. He gives some clarification in The Extended Phenotype
>(1982), but then several years later in The Blind Watchmaker (1986) he
>dramatically changes the word's meaning without even noting that he was
>making a change, let alone explaining the change. People naturally concluded
>that Dawkins needed help with the definition, and that seems to have brought
>in a range of still further definitions and usages.
>
>Murray Gell-Mann could have made a mess of the word "quark" if he either
>wanted to or if he simply did not treat the matter seriously enough. Dawkins
>could have made less of a mess of the word "meme," too. Even if he had
>explicitly defined it in some way radically different from anything he has
>said so far, I think all of us would have been better served by at least
>knowing what role if any the word should play in our scientific
>communications.
>
Your points are well taken; they lead me, however to my previous conclusion that the term 'meme' deserves refinement to something (asymptotically) approaching operational consensus rather than extinction.
>
>--Aaron Lynch
>
>http://www.thoughtcontagion.com
>
>===============================================================
>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
------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
===============================================================
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 Dec 04 2001 - 07:51:21 GMT