From: Reed Konsler (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri 16 May 2003 - 08:21:40 GMT
"You mean that there is something in my brain, and your brain, that is the same if we both saw the same thing? Cos apart from on the most base level of perception I'd have to part company with you."
No, not "the same", complementary. At the "base level of perception" the memes we construct would be quite complementary. Each level of interpretation is a reperception in the brain. We don't have the same brain, so after the information begins to traverse increasingly divergent media. The "meaning" becomes increasingly divergent as the information is processed through increasingly complex and higher-order levels.
"I can only think that we would both try to make the same kind of 'junk sculpture' copy from whatever came to hand in our respective (and completely different) minds..."
I agree with three caveats. First, "completely different" is an overstatement, or at least your personal perspective. I don't feel fundamentally alienated, in mind, from my fellow humans. But I do agree with "different". Second, continuing conversations concerning the mutually observed event will lead to increasing complementarity. Finally, each of us can hold many different 'junk sculptures' in our minds. I can hold mine, a complementary replica of yours, and a number of crosses between them. How many is limited only by my cognitive power, but it is at least possible for the number to be greater than one, and I don't have to choose one as "true". I can try to pedict the consequences of using each of them in a particular context and then go with the one that seems to serve my purpose. Later I can invoke another, even completely contradictory, model.
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 : Sat 17 May 2003 - 14:22:42 GMT