Re: throwing tomatoes

Date: Wed 21 May 2003 - 18:03:43 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: more cats"

    > On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 01:13 AM, memetics-digest wrote:
    > > I got it; I just don't agree with it,
    > I don't have a problem with that.
    > > that the tomatoes were nontoxic to humans was
    > > not present anywhere in the external environment. I triple-dog-DARE
    > > you to show me where it was. And Jack had to know this piece of
    > > info. before he told it to Jill, in order to do so. Where did he
    > > store this knowledge? In his BRAIN, dewde! It was a meme that had
    > > been transferred to him, and he subsequently transferred it to Jill.
    > > Coffee, anyone? It's wake-up time!
    > But, you never use your understanding of the performance model in your
    > criticism of it, because, it is very simple to apply the definitions
    > and mechanisms of it to all of your scenarios. Triple-dog-dare? The
    > fact that people eat tomatoes and do not get sick is, what, some sort
    > of fact held only in brains? No. It is an observable and solid
    > presence in the environment, the fact that Jack is not dead.
    But Jack would not be eating the tomato (just as Jill did not previous to its safety being communicated) if he did not know it was nutritious rather than toxic. And this knowing is a cognitively internal meme thing, that Jack not only remembers (this makes it a memory) but is able to communicate to Jill (this makes it a member of the memory subclass known as memes).
    > And then, it is a very solid performance from him to tell Jill he is
    > alive, although one wonders why she needed to be reminded of this,
    > perhaps Jack is not very demonstrative in his affections....
    Showing, like telling and writing, is a subclass of saying, and all saying is communication of knowledge one possesses but the other does not possess to that other.
    > I like my coffee dark.
    As dark as your crow?
    > Information does not come, somehow magically, before the fact of its
    > observation, and does not get understood before an attempt at
    > communication. All these attempts are memes. The information in the
    > brain is not.
    That is where the memes are stored between reception and subsequent retransmission. After all, there are usually chains of transmission- receptions for any particular meme. The information is most certainly understood befor it is transmitted - by the transmitter.
    > This is a straight application of the performance model and the
    > definitions of the performance model.
    > The reason I do not agree with the memeinthemind model, is because, in
    > order for a culture to evolve, regardless of what information someone
    > has in his brain, an attempt must be made to communicate it, and this
    > attempt must be observed, and then attempted again, and if the
    > attempts (the memes) maintain a pattern of continuity such that
    > following performances are similar to a large audience, the cultural
    > venue that maintains this performance is maintainable.
    But that information IS the meme; the communication is just the proliferation of it. Memories do not all have to be memes, just as any writing does not have to be a letter, but if it can be mailed it becomes a letter (not if it is actually mailed). Genes are genes even if they are latent and not expressed (recessive). Memories are latent memes if they can be communicated, and active memes if attempts to communicate them are actually made. If the attempts are unsuccessful, this does not mean that they are not memes, just that they are not very good ones.
    > Jack communicated the tomato's non-lethal qualities to Jill, who may
    > in turn communicate this to Jock, and so on. And even the facts of the
    > communication don't need to be the same. She may just say, 'these are
    > good', instead of 'these won't kill you.' But, the main point, and one
    > you refuse to acknowledge in your criticism of the performance model,
    > is that a performance is necessary in order to continue the culture of
    > tomato eating.
    Both knowledge and performance are necessaty, I have said time and time again; both the internal and the external are essential; memetic transfer and evolution cannot transpire without BOTH of them.
    > The memeinthemind, the thing in a BRAIN that you so ardently champion,
    > won't tell a soul a thing.
    Sure it will, by the agency of another memeplex called language
    (moving the lips and palate to produce understandable sound- sequences - ones that refer to strings of sign-referent associations).
    > "Say, can I have some of your purple berries"
    > "Yes, I've been eating them for six or seven weeks now
    > Haven't got sick once
    > Prob'ly keep us both alive"
    And the six or seven weeks does not need to be observed by the other, as long as the first knows his berry history, and is able to tell it.
    > - 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:

    =============================================================== 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 21 May 2003 - 18:08:45 GMT