Date: Wed 16 Oct 2002 - 19:07:08 GMT
> On Wednesday, October 16, 2002, at 02:18 , email@example.com
> > Thus by your excision of internalization you have cut off the
> > possibility of memetic replication
> Not at all.
> The performance will strike a chord within me, and prompt me to
> replicate it, but I am not possessed of the meme at any point, and
> until I attempt to replicate it in behavior, I will only be
> contemplating its utility.
It's striking a chord is its being internalized, hooking you beneath your filters, although you may still filter it, depending upon the results of your utility-contemplation. It is certainly present, or you could contemplate its utility. People cannot contemplate the utility of nothing, or of nothing specific.
> > It'll do just fine, and always has, with mental workers, such as
> > mathematicians, who can evolve their innovations in spare moments.
> Perhaps one of these days, we will have purely mental work, and purely
> mental workers, but, until then, we need to _see_ E=mc^2, or we have
> no idea what Al was doing, or meant to be doing.
Unless he had mentally figured it out beforehand, he never would have possessed it to communicate it.
> > Since behaviorism failed
> > when applied to human action generally,
> Interesting use of the concept of failure.
> I am _not_ a behavioralist. Far from it.
> I am only saying that, units of culture, called memes, _are_
> behaviors. They are not simply behavioristic, anymore than general
> human actions are.
Behaviors are involved, but so is mentation. Insofar as a behavior is meaningful, that is, specific and significant, it must be recognized as such by the person choosing to accept or reject it; otherwise there is no reason for any meme to be more, or less, replicable than any other. They succeed or fail based upon their semantic content.
> > there is no internal meme, so one could not have passed
> This is a correct reading of my stance, and I guess I'm standing
> alone. There is no passage of any meme, at any point. The meme is
> _observed_, not passed, and the attempt is either made, or not, to
> replicate it. If it is made, the meme is _reconstructed_ to the best
> ability of the performer. (The performer may be inadequate to the
> task, or superb, and these are all conditions upon which the
> continuation of the meme depends.)
This is the kind of extreme definition that asserts that we need a different name for every individual tree. If the behavior is recognizeable similar enough to indeed be recognized as a token of the type by an observer, then a communication has occurred.
> Your song, for instance, depends in some part upon the quality of your
> voice. Some songs require certain voices, some don't. Conditions, like
> environment, are not memes.
But they influence them. After all, it was the environmental presence of a simultaneous concert that caused our hypothetical churchgoer to forego a Sunday service.
> - Wade
> 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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 16 Oct 2002 - 19:12:12 GMT