From: Wade T. Smith (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu 22 May 2003 - 16:43:03 GMT
On Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 11:53 AM, Richard wrote:
> I take the position that any thought, belief, attitude, opinion, or
> I have may potentially affect my behavior in the future, and that
> affect on
> my behavior might, however slightly, increase the probability of that
> of mental information being replicated in another mind, Therefore, any
> mental information is a potential meme.
I know that's your position. It's the position of anyone who wants
memesinthemind- and they always equivocate, as you do, by calling them
Well, the performance model does not have potential memes. (And this is
not just an economical decision.) As you say above, it is your
_behavior_ (i.e. performance) that increases the probability of impression to another mind.
Saying 'any information is a potential meme' is, well, pretty damn
sloppy, doncha think?
Is _any_ piece of protoplasm a potential life form? Don't think so.
However, saying "any thought, belief, attitude, opinion, or learning I
have may potentially affect my behavior in the future" is perfectly
clear and understandable, and sits well in the performance model too.
But, what about that behavior? Nothing in your mind actually really
tells either you or anyone else that you _will_ behave. That is the
function of the venue, which allows you to behave, with all of your
thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, opinions, learnings, skills, and other
memories and physical abilities.
Walk into a restaurant, and you will not only be expected to eat, but
given little other choice of behavior in that venue. Well, unless
you're a fashion model, of course....
And while we're not expected to agree here in this forum, I'm not
disagreeing just because I don't want to eat in this restaurant, but I
also don't think the menu has to be so strictly vegan as the
memeinthemind model wants it to be. The kitchen is much larger than
that, and the huge staff is not lazy.
> So, think of a performance as a cultural phenotype. As I've said, the
> performance includes not only the publicly observable aspect, where we
> the memes, but the neuro-muscular activites of all the performers.
> being so, a performer will have some memory of the performance, though
> necessarily an exact or complete memeory (in fact, almost certainly
> not). In
> particular, the performer has a sense of more or less pleasure or
> To the extent that a performance was pleasurable, the performer will be
> motivated to repeat it. The new performance -- which is thus a new
> phenotype -- may be more or less like the previous one. No doubt it
> share a bunch of memes with the previous one. Thus the "survival" of
> a meme
> depends on its being in successful performances.
- and I'm sure no-one here would be surprised to know that I agree with
him, and find that the pleasure motivation is an added bonus the the
performance model. After all, I've explored performance _theory_, and
so has Bill, but, the memeinthemind model ignores it. Why? Because it
can only order off of one menu? Because it denies environment? Maybe,
but I'm beginning to think that it is too invested in putting its ghost
meme into the pot of cognitive explanation to actually come up with an
empirical predictive theory.
Time to wander the world, guys. There's much more food out there rather
than spending time spicing the stew with arsenic.
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 22 May 2003 - 16:49:14 GMT