From: Scott Chase (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun 16 Apr 2006 - 17:14:16 GMT
>From: Robin Faichney <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: Robert Aunger essay
>Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 11:18:28 +0100
>It's interesting the way this discussion has developed. The issue of the
>definition of the meme evolved very quickly into a discussion of "substrate
>neutrality". Examples where the same information is carried on different
>media were put forward by Kate, Keith and myself merely to emphasize the
>nature of information, and thus the fact that memes, as items of
>information, can be and are encoded not just in brains OR behavioural
>patterns, but in brains AND behavioural patterns AND all kinds of
>artifacts. That issue -- definition -- seems to me much more important --
>especially given the fact that nobody has suggested that the substrate is
>entirely neutral. But few of us seem to be very interested in it.
Well Mogens mentioned Medium Theory and McLuhan. Jesse discussed aspects of the source that might be important to a given receiver. I'd say there's a few of us interested in these topics relted to media.
If a receiver is sexist they might discount info presented by a woman as
source. Jesse also raised a good point about the vocal qualities of a source
where he was turned off by a speaker on an audiobook so much that he gave up
and bought the traditional paper/ink codex format.
Besides voice there are other qualities of a speaker that may have an impact
on the transmission of info, such as credibility, authority, attractiveness,
similarity to receiver, etc. Such things cannot be discounted.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 16 Apr 2006 - 17:53:41 GMT