Date: Sat 24 May 2003 - 03:26:08 GMT
> On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 08:50 PM, memetics-digest wrote:
> > . and if [the cognitively stored knowledge of what these
> > physical properties (bats, ball, glove, field, bases, and so on)
> > represent, are intended for, can be used for, were designed for,
> > etc., ..] have been communicated, by an other, to the person who
> > possesses this knowledge, it cannot be denied that this knowledge is
> > comprised of already-replicated memes.
> There is no possible connection besides wishful thinking between
> knowledge and memes. The only unobjectionable conclusion to be drawn
> by a situation where two expressions of knowledge are similar is that
> the expressions are similar, because we have, as in the Clever Hans
> episode of training and behavior, similar expressions that are not, in
> any way, communications of similar learnings.
Memes are a subclass of knowledge - that subclass that can be communicated. Of course, it requires a triple-digit IQ to grok this.
> All cultural venues are examples of parameters evolved to impart
> similar learnings and produce similar expressions.
> As practice makes perfect, performance in a cultural venue also tunes
> the parameters to produce more and more similar replicated
> performances. This is a dynamic process, and, in extreme cases,
> produces performers who know nothing except what to do and when to do
> it, not why they do it. Armies. Cults. Liberal democrats.... In the
> more prevalent and milder cases, we have benign performances
> practically without meaning, 'how do you do' 'nice to meet you' 'have
> a nice day' 'y'all come back now, y'hear?' 'It was so cool that Ruben
> won' which are performed in stepped and measured allowances, much like
> chemical tracers producing chores in ant colonies. Culture is not that
> far removed from such sources, and memetics is not either. Certainly
> not enough to demand special causes of more easily reasoned effects.
Specific venues are not required when one is simply supposed to communicate a meesage regardlees of venue. The UR-example is the Christian great charter: "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that whosoever believest shall not perish, but have everlasting life."
> As I said, there is no need to produce the memeinthemind when culture
> can be explained without it. That is why positing such a cause is
> theology, not science.
But culture can't be explained without cognitive memetics; even multiple transmitting performances granting the recipients with the selfsame meme cannot be explained without it. Of course, this is why your pseudomodel is doomed among those who possesss multiple communicational modes, and is better consigned to the lesser mammals. In fact, the presence of both pronted bibles and oral proselytization gives the lie to your phantasy; the very existence of not only religion, but so many other things that are communicated via multiple modes, falsifies it beyond salvage or redemption.
> - 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 : Sat 24 May 2003 - 03:32:34 GMT