Re: Abstractism

From: Philip Jonkers (philipjonkers@prodigy.net)
Date: Fri Jan 25 2002 - 23:05:41 GMT

  • Next message: salice@gmx.net: "Re: sex and the single meme"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA26757 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:12:40 GMT
    Message-ID: <001901c1a5f4$d071b280$2503aace@oemcomputer>
    From: "Philip Jonkers" <philipjonkers@prodigy.net>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    References: <AA-1A04C7B4EE944C7668FBC1D84F18EF95-ZZ@maillink1.prodigy.net> <00af01c1a479$ac039ac0$aa86b2d1@teddace> <01cc01c1a4b6$22e1a1a0$6621aace@oemcomputer> <007b01c1a5cf$dc9d6380$2cc2b3d1@teddace>
    Subject: Re: Abstractism
    Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:05:41 -0900
    Organization: Prodigy Internet
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
    X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Ted:
    > > > To be real a thing must exist whether or not we believe in it. An
    > > > abstraction, by definition, is a product of consciousness. It cannot
    > > > exist unless we imagine it-- precisely the opposite of the ontological
    > > > criterion.
    > > >
    > > > If memes are abstractions, then we're just playing games here,
    fiddling
    > > > with words and imagining we've discovered something.

    Philip:
    > > Okay, bad sequence of words I admit. I should have stated:
    > > The meme is an entity that would best be described abstractly.

    Ted:
    > An abstract description of memes would involve elements that are found
    among
    > all memes. It's no different than describing anything else. We can
    > abstract the qualities of trees and thereby arrive at a general definition
    > of trees. But if you want to describe a particular tree, you'll have to
    > leave the abstractions behind. Same goes with memes.

    Okay, I can see your objection. What I had in mind however was to abstractly
    regard one meme which may reside in multiple hosts. Each host has somekind
    of
    neural representation of the meme which is highly non-unique as Derek
    pointed
    out. Moreover it is likely to be a function of time as well as you
    constantly
    update, modify and increase your knowledge database. With abstract
    description
    of one particular meme I meant a description captured in language
    (or other mode of communication) which may be more or less the same in all
    of the hosts at hand. Clearly, you can't do that (at least at this point in
    science)
    if you define a meme in terms of neural correlates and try to find a the
    same
    correlates in different meme-hosts.
    So with abstract I mean a more protocol-like language representation of a
    meme.
    For instance my self-plex would include: male, 30 years old, post-doc
    neuroscience, loves: programming and movies, loathes: religion and jealousy.
    Admires: Bruce Lee, Robert DeNiro, Charles Darwin & Paul Dirac. etc.....
    Instead of vague non-unique neural correlates.

    Philip.

    ===============================================================
    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 Jan 25 2002 - 22:46:18 GMT