To: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:15:02 -0700 (PDT) |
Message-id: | <1365606902.47636.YahooMailNeo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
John Bottoms:
From a modeling perspective:
·
Languages are first level abstraction of real
world
·
Languages are _expression_ of the world, allows us
to express and communicate past, present, future, real and imaginary, proven
and unproven aspects of the world.
·
Words are parts of a language.
·
Nouns are used to express “things” in English
language. Things - as in entities. ( Not
all words are things. For example, verbs are words, but not things)
·
Nouns are a subset of words.
·
Memes are ideas / concepts, real or imaginary,
proven or unproven.
Question is : do we need to model
meme??
My opinion : Concepts can be named with a name and modeled.
At present we do not use the verbiage –“ meme” for it. Probably we can use the name “meme” in the future. About Darwinism, Americans use the word Darwinism from a scientific evolution point of view vs theological, god made us, changed us ( mutation) etc. Maxwell, & Dr. Steven. Thanks for summarizing my gibberish writing. ( It was not scientific feed back, it was more of a general discussion) There is natural evolution due to mutation and then there is human intervention for change. Grafting & genetic engineering are human intervention. My point was Darwinism did not include human intervention, or cross breeding among subspecies. You mentioned that his theory includes cross breeding among
subspecies?? However the following is not totally proven in all cases and is open for speculation and there are ethical issues about genetic engineering. ( I don;t want to go there)
Thanks, Pavithra From: John Bottoms <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:20 AM Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes Pavithra,
I may not have remembered his wording correctly in the use of "word". Also, it is a difficulty of linguistics that "thing" often gets used when a better selection would be "entity". However, the audience understood the intent of the question. Words come and go and likewise memes come and go. They share some characteristics and there is a shoot-from-the-hip impulse to put them in a lexicon or dictionary. Another view might be that memes are types of propositions that need to be evaluated. They could be classified into "indeterminate" until they are evaluated. Dennett does recognize that memes are "good" or "bad", and I suppose we should accept that they can be resurrected. One theory I have is that the term "meme" applies to atomic entities that have particular attributes or properties that can be generalized or rationalized. If that is true then we should be able to build classifiers for memes. A question for exploration is whether that property can be understood in a way that makes sense or is useful. Your view of giraffe evolution is referred to as Lamarckian inheritance and it survives today only as a weakened theory. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism) -John Bottoms Concord, MA USA On 4/9/2013 8:39 PM, Pavithra wrote:
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01) |
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes, John F Sowa |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes, John Bottoms |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes, John Bottoms |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes, Pat Hayes |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |