Date: Wed 21 May 2003 - 23:20:53 GMT
> On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 06:42 PM, Joe wrote:
> > But that information IS the meme
> But, it is _not_ the meme in the performance model. Again, you are
> using one model to judge another, and, well, that ain't fair.
But that is what's wrong with the performance model; it cannot explain the situations it is tasked to explain, such as how a performance type is retained between expressed tokens of it.
> > Genes are genes even if they are latent and not expressed
> > (recessive).
> Yah, they are. And artifacts are artifacts even if they are latent.
> But they ain't memetically useful.
> A latent gene (sitting in a dinosaur egg) is not doing its
> evolutionary duties, and an extinct artifact (that Tlingit
> whateveritwas) is not either. They need some cultural venue viagra.
> It's all still a matter of shifting meanings by position and status
> with the memeinthemind model. The performance model only has one
> meaning, in one place, for one purpose, in one state of activity, for
> _its_ meme. And I like that better.
And I find that incapable of explaining type similarity. Latent is still existent. the letter is still a letter when it is not yet mailed, or if it never is. A base pair does not cease being a base pair because it inhabits a recessive gene.
> > Both knowledge and performance are necessary, 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.
> I know you've said that time and time again. And what I keep telling
> you time and time again is this- _in the performance model_, which is
> _not_ to be judged by the memeinthemind model (which has absolutely
> _no_ empirical or evidential support and is only a conjecture about
> how minds work), these two separate things, the information and the
> performance, are not only separate and unique words, but separate and
> unique cultural operations and they are kept apart in meaning and
> utility, and only _one_ of them is the meme. The performance model
> will not allow one thing to be in two places at once, even with two
> different names. That they are both necessary for your model is, well,
> it's a problem, as in the performance model information is _not_
> necessary, at least the information that is attempted to be
> transferred by the performer. What one infers from a performance may
> totally be at odds from the intention (and thus the information being
> used) of the performer. And, to my mind, saying that intentional
> information is a necessity is a blind error, of both cultural
> evolution and ordinary perception. It's a comedian's paradise, the
> seriously intentioned character who's enormously humorous.
> You insist upon grey crows, and then ask me to eat them. I still say
> you have to find one first if not bake four and twenty of them into a
And you keep confusing the letter with the postal service, which is why, I guess, you still obstinately refuse to sign for your crowpie delivery. Thge performance is an ENCODING of the meme; the selfsame meme may be encoded by showing, telling and writing, even though they are vastly different performances. This commonality of intended meaning perduring through a plurality of nonrelational actions is something that your model cannot wrap its methodology around, and I sincerely doubt that it shall ever be able to do so. But the cognitive model can and does; the UR-encoding is cognitive, and all the various performances
(showing, telling, writing) are different saying-modes (translations) of 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: 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 : Wed 21 May 2003 - 23:26:31 GMT