Re: transmission

Date: Wed 14 May 2003 - 22:55:51 GMT

  • Next message: Ray Recchia: "Parallel extinction risk and global distribution of languages and species"

    > on 5/14/03 3:54 PM, Wade T. Smith at wrote:
    > >
    > > There is no information being passed from one mind to another. There
    > > is only performance (from a performer or an artifact) based upon
    > > experience, and perceptual representation (by an observer) based
    > > upon interest and venue. Memetic success is quantified by the
    > > similarities between the first performance and the performance to
    > > follow. Cultural evolution is not possible without a following
    > > performance, and only a successful memetic (or viral) performance
    > > prompts the behavior of continuance.
    > >
    > Yes.
    > So, let's imagine Jack and Jill making noises over a telephone. Jack
    > makes some noise and Jill hears something. What's going on physically
    > is that Jack's phone has an electro-mechanical mechanism that
    > translates sound waves from his voice into electrical impulses. Those
    > impulses then travel through the phone line to Jill's phone where
    > another electro-mechanical mechanism translates those electrical
    > impulses into sound waves. This is the situation for which Shannon
    > and Weaver invented their technical concept of information.
    > Information in this technical sense can be transmitted from one
    > physical system to another.
    > So, imagine that Jack says "dog" into the phone. If the
    > electro-mechanical system is poor, then Jill may not be able to tell
    > what sound Jack made. Maybe it was "dog" and maybe it was "bog." She
    > can't tell.
    > Let's assume, however, that that's not a problem. The
    > electromechanical system is able to transmit enough Shannon-Weaver
    > information to allow Jill to distinguish between "dog" and "bog." If
    > Jill doesn't speak English, then it doesn't make any difference.
    > "Bog" and "dog" are equally meaningless to her. Jack can utter "dog"
    > all he wants, as loudly and distinctly he wants. It makes no
    > difference. Jill won't be able to understand his message. The "dog"
    > idea-in-the-head meme IS NOT being transmitted through the phone line.
    > All that's transmitted is a sonic wave-form. If meaning were
    > transmitted then the fact that Jill doesn't speak English shouldn't
    > make any difference. She'd know what Jack was talking about as soon as
    > she heard the sound.
    > So, what does it mean to "know English" and how does one learn it?
    > Let's continue with "dog." Sometime relatively early in life the
    > infant sees dogs while mommy or daddy or big sis or big bro says
    > "dog." When this goes on long enough the infant learns that there is
    > an association between the sound /dog/ and the animal. But that
    > association is constructed in the infant's brain BY THE INFANT
    > HERSELF. No one's doing it for her. No meaning is ever TRANSMITTED
    > from anyone else to the infant. All that EVER happens is that words
    > are uttered in contexts from which the infant makes inferences. And so
    > it goes for word upon word upon word.
    > Now, you might wonder: "How can such a crazy system ever work?" We
    > don't really know.
    > More likely you're thinking: "Yeah, but that's just a technicality."
    > You're right. It's a technicality. But it's a technicality that
    > FOREVER separates mentalist memetics from science. If you just want
    > to talk informally about culture then, sure, by all means talk about
    > memes-in-the-head. But if you want to do science, then you can't talk
    > that way. And if that means that St. Richard Dawkins is talking
    > nonsense, along with St. Daniel Dennett, then so be it. They're
    > talking nonsense.
    > If you really want to talk that way, then I suggest you 'fess up,
    > break out the incense, take a couple of tokes from a nice spliff, and
    > get high. Have fun. Don't worry. Be happy.
    > But it's not science.
    > "Who cares? The earth is flat, and only 6000 years old. What's your
    > sign?"
    The problem with this objection is that once the infant has made the association, then the waveform corresponding to the sound /dog/ DOES MEAN (for the infant, then and in its post-infantile future) the four-footed furry thing that barks, and not a quagmire, which the waveform correponding to the sound /bog/ would mean. The learned association
    (within the infant who picked it up by noticing that when the referent was present, others made the sound, and subsequently within the child and adult) between the sound and the referent is evoked by the sound itself, and thus the referent is indeed meant by the sound (but only for those who have learned the association between them).
    > --
    > William L. Benzon
    > 708 Jersey Avenue, Apt. 2A
    > Jersey City, NJ 07302
    > 201 217-1010
    > "You won't get a wild heroic ride to heaven on pretty little
    > sounds."--George Ives
    > Mind-Culture Coevolution:
    > ===============================================================
    > 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:

    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 14 May 2003 - 23:01:33 GMT