From: Jerry Bryson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue 16 May 2006 - 15:57:10 GMT
On May 16, 2006, at 10:40 AM, Chris Lofting wrote:
> Mimicry is built-in to the neurology that we share with other life
> but a major difference between us and our monkey cousins is they cannot
> detect MIME - we can where that detection reflects the development of
> imagination from our complex neurology.
How do we know they can't?
> Thus there is a scale of development of 'mirror neurons' that
> transcend all life forms bar us.
So, how do we do it?
> That takes us into the IMAGINATION of meaning; we see more than is
> there in
> the first place.
Imagination allows us to "fill in the gaps, and to remove the
graininess of the image from our irises. Seems reasonable that other
animals do it, too.
> The set of basic behaviours such as mimicry is 'built in' to our
> methodology of meaning derivation/communication. What makes a
> difference is
> the development of sense of self where that development follows on from
> birth and is detectable through identification of the development of
> emotions that need a sense of self to be 'meaningful'.
Animals look like they do that, too. a bug demonstrates fear.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On
>> Of Robin Faichney
>> Sent: Tuesday, 16 May 2006 11:09 PM
>> To: email@example.com
>> Subject: Re: RS
>> Tuesday, May 16, 2006, 10:13:35 AM, Kate wrote:
>> So long as the letters exist on a page or screen, and there are
>> people who
>> can understand them, why doesn't it make sense to say that these
>> represent information? Of course they lose that meaning when there
>> are no
>> human minds to interact with them, but that doesn't mean that they are
>> 'meaningless' in the sense that an undiscovered boulder is
>> What's the difference between letters on a page where there are no
>> whatsoever, and an undiscovered boulder?
>> I think that it is very easy to imitate a tune, without any conceptual
>> apparatus. Just as it is easy for children to imitate our hand
>> or facial gestures. But I'd agree that there are different levels of
>> imitation. At one level we just imitate the details, without any
>> understanding of what's going on, and at another level we imitate the
>> functional structure of the behaviour, and may even vary the
>> details. And, as you say, it's the addition of this context, this
>> understanding (metarepresenting what's going on: seeing it *as*
>> that has a context) which lifts things to the memetic level.
>> Just imitating the details, without any proper understanding, will
>> get the job done, and isn't that what matters? A proto-human sees
>> doing something and later does something very similar, with the same
>> result. It was learned not by individual trial-and-error, but by
>> imitation. A way of making pots, for instance. Why shouldn't that
>> count as
>> a meme?
>> Best regards,
>> Robin mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
>> ===================== 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
>> (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)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue 16 May 2006 - 16:28:41 GMT