From: Vincent Campbell (VCampbell@dmu.ac.uk)
Date: Thu 17 Oct 2002 - 11:06:21 GMT
I wish you guys had told me all this before I rushed out and bought a copy
I haven't read it yet, put off by it being a memes in mind model, and a bit
by the detailed neuroscience and biology stuff- that apparently is all wrong
anyway, but I wouldn't have picked that up.
> From: Scott Chase
> Reply To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 4:13 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: electric meme bombs
> >From: William Benzon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Reply-To: email@example.com
> >To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Subject: Re: electric meme bombs
> >Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 19:16:51 -0400
> >on 10/15/02 6:46 PM, Bill Spight at email@example.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >
> > > Aunger is consistent about identifying memes in terms of networks of
> > > neurons.
> >And a network of neurons is a thing, not a state of a thing.
> > >I'm not sure what he means by a configuration, nor am I sure
> > > that he is sure. But he is fairly clear, elsewhere, that memes are
> > > defined by function rather than structure.
> >Sure, within any one paragraph he's consistent. But he's got to be
> >consistent across all his paragraphs. He's not.
> > >A state has certain
> > > behavioral correlates, but its reproduction within one brain or within
> > > another brain does not have to reproduce the same neuronal structure.
> > >
> > > It is possible, I think, to represent such a meme as a network of
> > > prototypical neurons and synapses, each of which plays a certain role
> > > performs a certain function, but which is realized differently in each
> > > concrete instance. Such a network cannot be identified under the
> > > microscope.
> >A network is a network. You can identify them under microscopes. It may
> >be the case that any two people have the same networks. But, whatever
> >networks a person has, you can look at them under a microscope.
> > >
> > > Given his emphasis on the difference between his definition and that
> > > Dawkins, I think that Aunger had such a network in mind
> >For all I know, Dawkins had a network in mind as well.
> > >...and is guilty of
> > > imprecise language rather than internal contradiction. That's hardly
> > > only instance of loose talk in the book. ;-)
> >Right, his neural memetics is a tissue of imprecision. It's must a bunch
> >flim-flam. All it says is that memes are itty bitty things in the
> >system that replicate. Anything beyond that is just ornamental detail.
> >What you don't seem to realize is that, when Aunger committed himself to
> >getting serious about the nervous system, he left the world where vague
> >metaphor was OK.
> When he committed himself to explaining basic molecular and cell biology
> (eg-ribosomes and complementary base pairing) , he should have been a
> more serious in editing out mistakes, which I've pointed to in previous
> posts. If those areas were sloppy, how confident should one be with the
> of the book?
> Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free! Try MSN.
> 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 : Thu 17 Oct 2002 - 11:13:16 GMT