Date: Sun 03 Nov 2002 - 22:17:25 GMT
> On Sunday, November 3, 2002, at 03:50 , Grant Callaghan wrote:
> > Since we can perform the same behavior over and over and we can call
> > up these thousands of words, which are an activity we refer to as
> > memetic, what further proof do you need?
> But performing similar behaviors over and over is not memetic solely-
> as every living thing does behaviors over and over. Is this use of
> words such a special sort of behavior that we have to call it
> something else? As you say, we only infer the mind.
> > Are you trying to prove that the meme is a physical presence rather
> > than a process we use?
> IMHO, those who want to claim there is a memeinthemind need to do
> precisely that, or renege enough to call whatever they're talking about
> 'memetic process' rather than 'meme'. (I want to _disprove_ there is a
> meme in there, while being totally comfortable with establishing the
> premises and conditions of a memetic process, which involves at least
> two individuals and a performance in time/space. And I want the meme
> to be the analyzed performance, and not the ghost in the machine.)
The meme is the dynamic pattern-configuration that is neuronally/synaptically/dendritically/axonally stored in the brain, and is accessed on order to perform a token of the behavior/pereformance of which it is a template of the type. Whether you call that a process or a thing is up to you, but it is undeniably nonrandom information that is encoded in a physical substrate, although it is not the physical substrate itself.
> > If we came upon a computer and couldn't access its insides without
> > destroying it, could you prove that a program was running it?
> But, of course, this collection of pieces we now have is not the
> computer. And yes, it is a simple process to identify the program
> running in an intact computer, or the fact there is no program
> By analyzing its performance....
> Even Dennett's memes (and Joe's and everyone elses who puts 'em in the
> mind) are reducible to (or in actuality) algorithms. And they are
> things most capable of being genetic, and most capable of intensely
> complex responses. This is the most important point of the recent work
> by Wolfram, which I am not ready to dismiss.
Naah; the meme to hokey-pokey, or to polka to an accordian, or the memes to build or play the accordian, did not genetically evolve.
> - 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 : Sun 03 Nov 2002 - 22:21:19 GMT