Subject: Re: Doing the neural walk
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 98 09:04:26 -0600
From: Mark Mills <mmills@fastlane.net>
To: "Memetics List" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <E0zIvfu-0006iw-00@dryctnath.mmu.ac.uk>
John Wilkins wrote,
>Am I a cyberneticist? I guess, since I follow the Williams definition
>which is based on evolutionary genes as "cybernetic abstractions" that
>to some extent I am, but I would rather say that I am attempting to
>understand memes as semantic information
Great. You have stated a preference for process models for both genes
and memes, so the cybernetic model fits.
>that is, meaningful messages that are transmitted.
>Cybernetics assumes a control system, and I do not think that it
>is useful to conceive of memes (or genes, for that matter) as
>"programs", which invites one
>to see bodies or "hosts" as "lumbering robots" so controlled.
There are a variety of ways to visualize cybernetic models. They include
the lumbering robot, but there are others.
>However, Mark has made some good points about this debate, and the issue is
>indeed one of substance versus process, or rather (in the terms used in the
>taxonomic debates), one of pattern versus process.
Thank you for the clarification.
>While I have some real difficulties with the replicator/interactor
>distinction when one is dealing with protobiology (or protocultural
>output in culture), I certainly have no problems with it in the
>normal course of biology.
Again, thank you for the clarification.
Mark
===============================================================
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