Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA22971 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Sat, 26 May 2001 21:48:43 +0100 From: <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:50:52 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Quantum questions ! CC: "dinij" <email@example.com> Message-ID: <3B0FD0DC.12918.BDBD1C@localhost> In-reply-to: <001901c0e61e$53fbeb80$209ebed4@default> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On 26 May 2001, at 21:58, Kenneth Van Oost wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Hi joe,
> Thanks for answering.
> Something went wrong with the list I suppose.
> But that is now in the clear I hope !?
> Anyway, you wrote...
> > Memes have not to do with the matter/energy in which they are
> > encoded, or even the code itself, so much as the signification
> > which is encoded therein. Otherwise, the entire concepts of
> > memetic hooks and filters would be incoherent, as these devices
> > disciminate on the basis of semantics (the meaning within the
> > message).
> << I just want to understand this issue better....
> << If memes have nothing to do with the dichotomy matter/ energy in
> which they are encoded,... if memes are not/ or have not any matter or
> energy of themselves... what are they made of !? Out of what they do
> exist !? I think this is a fair question to ask. You will probably
> answer, memes are made out of info. Ok, I go along with that, but out
> of what consist info !? Is it matter or energy or what !?
They are made of meaningful pattern, a configuration of
matter/energy; that is, not the 'matter/energy' of matter/energy, but
the signifying form which is imposed upon it. Matter/energy is
important to the instantiation of a pattern, but any particular
meaningful pattern, while it must be instantiated/configured in
SOME matter/energy medium, is not constrained to instantiate in
any medium in particular. Thus, e = mc*2 (or any other particular
meaningful pattern) may be spoken (encoded in sound waves and
air pressure differentials and absorbed via their effects upon our
auditory registration system) or written (encoded in ink on paper
and absorbed by our eyes via light waves reflecting off the
differently chemically comprised surfaces and thus manifesting
coherent patterns of color or shade reflectance differentials) or even
tapped out in braille on a palm.
> You write, that otherwise, the entire concepts of memetic hooks and
> filters would be incoherent, as these devices disciminate on the basis
> of semantics.
> << Wouldn 't that be just the question where memetics is all about_
> how and why these hooks and filters are not the same for everybody !?
> Even granted that they rely on semantics_ for each of us a word/ an
> ex- pression etc. can mean something different even that there is a
> general social/ political or cultural consensus about these !? IMHO,
> we have particle and relationship.
No, they are different because we have differing histories; Peter can
never be Paul (even identical twins have unique histories and
spatiotemporal perspectives), so any particular meme/meaning,
registering upon a different (although similar, since we ARE all
people, although different people) cognitive gestalt, interacts with it
in differing, yet similar ways. If there are larger differences (say,
language differences), one party can understand the meaning of the
message, while the other can only recognize it as a foreign
language. Memetic hooks and filters are, of course, NOT the same
for everyone; Islamic hooks and Buddhist hooks and Communist
hooks and racist hooks are all different, as are their filters; they
share similarities of form, but they are widely disparate
> I agree with the fact that memes are just seen as " meaning- holding-
> entities ", so in a way to give an interaction or a relationship a
> meaning,..a signification. So, can we say that memes provide the
> meaning for/ of a bosonic conden- sate, seen here as the probably unit
> of consciousness, in a quantum social way of speaking !? That is in a
> way, any given meme(plex) we know of, is a probability for further
> investigation and at the same time is ' definite ' just because of the
> lack of proof that the meme(ples) we know is the final outcome of any
> given evolved process !?
In a word, no. The moment you attempt to inextricably link the
instantiation of meaning, which can be represented by
configurations of ANY existent matter/energy, to one type of matter
or energy in particular and not the others, you err.
> Is a meme a (semantic) expression of the definite outcome of one
> probability by which a Bose- Einstein condensate collapsed !? And are
> all the different ' memes ' we all use to determine the same odd
> thing out, not just definite outcomes of a multitude of probabilities
> by which a multitude of Bose- Einstein condensates collapsed !?
No. You are confusing the world of being with the world of
meaning. Bertrand Russell would label it a category error.
> How on earth we go from the quantum mechanical world to the reality
> wherein memes exist is something of a different matter, I know, but
> just for the sake of the argument...
It is a matter of scale; the quantum world is at such a tiny scale
compared to the scale at which dynamically complex and recursive
intentionalities trade meanings that there are beaucoup level
transitions involved, and at each of them, the rules change and new
properties and possibilities emerge. It's like comparing a grain of
sand to the earth, except that such a comparison is not as
disparate as the one between quantum entities and a an interacting
system composed of three billion neuron brains, where each
neuron dendritically connnects to about fifty thousand others in
complex feedback and feedforward loops.
> << I think that the concept of hooks and filters is in anyway
> incoherent, because, like I said_ you can 't to the full extend grasp
> in what ways people click; and for what ever reason they click, and in
> what ways they/ or we give/ experience/ determine/ interpretate (the)
> meaning to and for their / our actions and behavior. Can we say, that
> memes in a sense act as they could have (a) Bosonic behavior !? After
> all, the last few months I have tried to advocate my point of view at
> several occasions ( Lamarck/ Darwin and how a Lamarckian reaction
> falls into, collapse or what ever word I used to get my message
> across, into Darwinian definitions/ structures/ traits and habits ( my
> fractal- idea about culture and society)) and with all do respect to
> everyone, what is advocated in social quantum theory comes close to
> what I have said upon this list.
No, once again. Some hooks and filters work on some people
better than others because we're individuals, with differing cognitive
environments differentially permeable to any particular memetic
hook or filter.
> IMO, but I have to check this further, much further, I think that
> memetics and quantum theory can be linked. IMO, an idea, any single
> meme out there appears to exist in a multitude of states ( any
> individual has his or her own ' idea' about something), until
> somebody, or something tips this into a definite outcome ( a
> definition, proof of any kind, a behavior). And still, IM- most HO,
> that goes for any form of our existence. Society and culture are just
> the general outcome of a multitude of definite outcomes/ behaviors/
> traits and habits.
It is easy to get enthralled by an experience of a new field of
knowledge, and in one's exuberant enthusiasm, attempt to over-
generalize it to apply to any and every thing under, over, around
and through the sun. I submit that this is what has happened to
you, as the narcotic rush of that initial idea infestation has caused
you to universally apply your new understanding, and therefore
> What I have learned so far about quantum theory, is that it lacks an
> experi- mental bias, can memetics be the one !? Or vice versa, can
> quantum theory be the background for finally seeing the first meme (
> or its existence anyway) !? After all, we only see/ determine/
> experience any meme or its outcome in any given social and cultural
> behavior/ trait and habit we have, a meme in itself is not yet been
> observed, well the outcome...
Actually, according to the double-slit experiment, the way you look
decides whether ypou see a particle or a wave; I consider that to
be an immense experimental bias, as the experiment you choose
decides the result you get on the selfsame entity. You are laboring
under the confusion that memes are things, but they're not; they
are the many different meaningful patterns into which we may
arrange many different things (including our own neural pathways,
the pages of a book, the grooves of a DVD, or the carvings on a
mountainside, among countless and immensely disparate others).
> Thanks for your time,
> ( I am, because we are) trying to get some insight
> 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 2b29 : Sat May 26 2001 - 21:52:28 BST