From: "John C. 'Buck' Field" <info@fieldoperative.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: The information theoretic view Was: JOM
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 14:41:15 -0500
In-Reply-To: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJAEJFDJAA.richard@brodietech.com>
OK Richard, now I understand the great lengths you went to with the ice analogy. It
never occurred to me that the complex environmental conditions and behavioral
processes relating to meme propagation would called memes themselves. This is
certainly incorrect, but several errors defending this point have really allowed in a
trickle (flood?) of vitriol.
I agree with you (on this one...heh) that such view appears confused and unlikely to
produce useful analysis.
--------------------------------------------
A ship in the harbor is safe, but that's not
what ships are for. Carpe Diem!
+++++++++++++++
Field Operative Services:
Database and Web Solutions
www.fieldoperative.com
--------------------------------------------
>-----Original Message-----
>From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
>Of Richard Brodie
>Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 12:57 PM
>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: RE: The information theoretic view Was: JOM
>
>
>Robin wrote:
>
><<Richard, you're not addressing the point that these replicators internal
>and external to the brain are the *same*. For every meme in the brain
>there is a meme encoded in behavior, and quite likely one encoded in an
>artifact too, but in fact these are all the same meme, and there is only
>one, in these different forms, en/decoded as it is copied back and
>forward. Why have more than one name when there's only one thing?>>
>
>You keep arguing with me, but I don't really have any disagreement with you
>other than you don't think mind-based replicators are particularly
>interesting. Enough people do that we have given them the name "meme." If
>you want to talk about encoding and so on that's fine... but I would be
>confused if you called, for instance, Amway a meme---talking about the whole
>organization, not just the word.
>
><<Aaargh! There's that "active" word again! When I castigated Jake, way
>back, for using it without being able to define it -- I went so far as
>to accuse him of mysticism or the like -- you *agreed* with me! So what
>are you doing with it here? Define it or drop it!>>
>
>"Active?" I guess I mean that its presence makes a significant difference,
>like the active ingredient in a medicine. You can change the inactive
>ingredients and there will be no difference in the effect, but if you change
>the active ones there will be. Memes present in minds influence behavior.
>Dots on rocks at the bottom of the sea don't.
>
><<I did wonder about your repetition of "special". Now I know what's
>behind it. But I won't abuse "mystic" or "mysticism" again. There are
>plenty of people very willing to do so who have the excuse of not
>knowing what these words actually mean. Instead, I'll call you a
>"mystifier". Unless/until you satisfactorily define "active", anyway.>>
>
>I got the word from Einstein, another noted mystic.
>
>Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com
>Author, "Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme"
>Free newsletter! http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
>
>
>===============================================================
>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 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