Message-Id: <199904140434.AAA24450@websmtp1.bellsouth.bigfoot.com>
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Out-takes as credit roll
From: "joe dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 01:07:06 -0400
At Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:06:25 +0100, you wrote:
>
>In message <008f01be85ee$2585f800$2ca1bfce@proftim>, Tim Rhodes
><proftim@speakeasy.org> writes
>>Bill Benzon wrote:
>>
>>>This is all well and good, but you are talking about Jackie Chan and about
>>>these other folks as though they themselves made decisions, as though they
>>>were trying to accomplish something. In orthodox memetics such talk seems
>>>to be forbidden. It's the meme's that do all the acting. These people are
>>>just vehicles for the memes. Any sense that they are doing anything for
>>>their reasons is pure illusion.
>>
>>But you must remember that one of important factors in the propigation of a
>>meme is the propagators belief (for whatever reason) that reproducing the
>>meme will benifit they're (purhaps illusionary) self-interests. The
>>presumed utility of the meme to the user/used are the phermones that drive
>>the indiviual to reproduce it.
>
>Remember, too, that at least equally effective for memes as self-
>interest are the "just fun" tactic, and the "just can't help it" one
>(e.g. humming a catchy tune).
>
This conundrum is easily resolved, when we remember that genes have, for most of their history, propagated in an environment bereft of intentionality, the natural environment, and only recently have a tiny percentage of their carriers evolved self-awareness and intentionality. Memes, OTOH, have also blindly evolved, but for their entire development, they have conducted their evolution in a self-aware and intentional environment, i.e. where the self-conscious intentionality of the host has from their beginning been part and part of the selection pressure, and a challenge/opportunity omnipresent in the memetic environment. It is no surprise that they appear to possess a pernicious cognitive parasitism bordering on intentionality, even though they themselves aren't sentient; we, the intentionally self-aware species Homo Sapiens, are the niche in which they have evolved, and to which such evolution has blindly but selectively adapted.
>
>But in general terms, where we try to keep our methods consistent, these
>are mutually exclusive explanatory frameworks. You can adopt the
>intentional stance towards people or towards memes, but not towards both
>at one time, it would seem. Or not if you value rigour, anyway. Of
>course you can also abjure intentionality altogether and insist there's
>nothing but blind mechanism, but don't try that one at home, folks.
>(Actually, pure memetic intentionality probably needs to be confined to
>the lab too.)
>
>What interests me just now is the relationship between explanatory
>frameworks. Especially where, as here, it seems frameworks are,
>logically, mutually exclusive, but nevertheless we feel we really need
>items from more than one of them. There are three options open: (1) we
>ditch some of these items, choosing one framework for all purposes and
>forgetting the others; or (2) we insist on consistency within any given
>context, but are willing to use different frameworks in different
>contexts; or (3) we relax even more and mix concepts from different
>frameworks within one context. As in the Church of Virus scenario in
>which we have to constantly be on our guard against those wily memes.
>Which I'm sure is very often a useful attitude. Personally, I reckon we
>need to ditch (1) as hopelessly impractical, and choose dynamically
>between (2) and (3) as the occasion seems to demand, depending mainly on
>its position along the theoretical/pragmatic dimension. (Assuming the
>memes let us choose, that is!)
>
>But do remember, if you follow Dennett anyway, that intentionality is
>just a stance -- as, I think, is belief in deterministic blind
>mechanism.
>--
>Robin Faichney
>Visit The Conscious Machine at http://www.conscious-machine.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
>
>
>
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access your e-mail anywhere, at any time.
Get your FREE BellSouth Web Mail account today!
http://webmail.bellsouth.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============================================================
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