From: Wade T. Smith (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu 06 Mar 2003 - 12:19:14 GMT
>> No argument, but, hmmm, we can't duplicate the conditions that this
>> natural selection occured within, can we? Nope, that time/space is
> Which is exactly why a different environmental condition might select
> for a different mutation among the subsequent alternatives - in other
> wortds, evolution continues.
You know I agree- this is performance time/space, and a different
environment, and that is where cultural evolution happens. One
individual player is only part of this time/space. And in order for
cultural evolution to continue, we need all the players.
>> But, yes, I am arguing that intention need not be communicated, at
>> all, and can be lost for all time.
> But the communication of intention is not prohibited, and indeed, is
> quite memetically ubiquitous.
Here's where I disagree, kinda. Yes, the deduction of intention is not
prohibited, is, as you say, ubiquitous, and might even be a full
disclosure with no ambiguities, but there is no guarantee or necessity
that this occur, as an entirely different meaning might be ascribed to
an action than the originator of the action intended, and this
'mistake' might be what is culturally replicated. Spoonerisms, for instance.
Where the mistake is made, that interaction between performer and
audience, is where memetics happens and where the meme exists. In my
model. The rest is only usual, genetic, developmental, behavior.
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 06 Mar 2003 - 12:15:58 GMT