Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA10824 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 9 Oct 2001 15:53:18 +0100 Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 09:48:45 -0500 (EST) From: "Derek Gatherer" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Message-Id: <200110091448.JAA22274@snipe.biotech.ufl.org> Subject: Re:Memes in brain Content-Type: text Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Apparently-To: email@example.com
I think that the main problem for external memes lies in the question of meaning
Yes, it is a problem. Especially when nobody can agree on the meaning.
What, for instance, is the meaning of "Waiting for Godot"? Something
was going on in Sam Beckett's head when he wrote it, but to what extent
is that something reproduced when we watch a production of the play? Did
he even intend that we should 'understand' some point he was trying to make -
or is it Zen-like, some sort of provocation to do our own thinking, not
necessarily congruent in any way with Beckett's own thoughts?
So, although I admit that I am totally at a loss to analyse meaning scientifically
, I'd submit that the internal approach does no better.
Somebody was making a point (it might have been you, Bill, possibly??) about
even if memes can be demonstrated not to be in brains, they might be in minds.
I just can't handle minds, I admit - everything I have ever been taught is
about analysing observables, and unfortunately minds aren't in that category.
I'm not sure if the internalist memeticists really do claim to be observing
minds. But I'd be very suspicious of any proposed science of minds - the
Freudians set out in that direction and vanished off the scientific radar screen.
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 : Tue Oct 09 2001 - 15:58:45 BST