Date: Thu 22 May 2003 - 17:21:23 GMT
> Reed wrote:
> <<Quibble quibble: if you can infer the existence of someone's rule,
> then there must be some kind of physical expression of it. Hence, it
> is not silent. That is why they call it a "tell".>>
> Keith said a rule you never let anyone know about was not a meme. I
> remarked it could be a meme even if you didn't let anyone know about
> it because they might be able to infer it from observing your
> behavior. To me, the two are not the same.
> I take the position that any thought, belief, attitude, opinion, or
> learning I have may potentially affect my behavior in the future, and
> that affect on my behavior might, however slightly, increase the
> probability of that piece of mental information being replicated in
> another mind, Therefore, any mental information is a potential meme.
An interesting point here is that, although the card-player's tell-signals are subliminal to and not even desired by him (because, after all, he does not WANT to advertise his hand and lose money to a tell-reader), they could not be made at all if he did not see and read his own hand. Thus, knowing THAT one is communicating (that one is performing the tells) is NOT necessary for communication to occur, but knowing WHAT one is communicating IS (that nasty mind-meme again!).
> Richard Brodie
> 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 : Thu 22 May 2003 - 17:26:20 GMT