ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes

To: Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:35:40 -0700
Message-id: <80BD447A-9B47-4131-8193-975FD47F2971@xxxxxxx>

On Apr 10, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Pavithra wrote:    (01)

> 
> 
> 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.    (02)

But they are also in the actual world, and can be studied empirically like any 
other phenomenon.    (03)

> ·         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)    (04)

All words are things. Not all words *describe* things, maybe.     (05)

> ·         Nouns are a subset of words. 
> ·         Memes are ideas / concepts, real or imaginary, proven or unproven.  
>  
> Question is :  do  we need to model  meme??    (06)

Who is "we" and what is being "modeled"?    (07)

> 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.     (08)

My advice would be to only use the term if you have a pretty exact idea of what 
it is you are talking about, and document that understanding as carefully as 
you possibly can.     (09)

> 
> About Darwinism,  Americans use the word Darwinism from a scientific 
>evolution point of view vs theological, god made us, changed us ( mutation) 
>etc.     (010)

American scientists use the term the same way other scientists do.     (011)

> 
> 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.    (012)

Until recently, the only intervention available was artificial *selection*, 
which follows the natural process but amplifies the effects.     (013)

>  Grafting & genetic engineering are human intervention.  My point was 
>Darwinism did not include human intervention, or cross breeding among 
>subspecies.      (014)

Darwin certainly considered cross-breeding and also human intervention in 
breeding (eg of dogs and farm animals, which he studied at great length: I 
recommend reading his "Origin of Species", it is a very readable work.) He did 
not, of course, consider genetic engineering, as genetics had not even been 
formulated when he was writing. I suspect he would have been delighted and 
fascinated to have known about genetics and DNA, but he did not have this 
pleasure.     (015)

> You mentioned that his theory includes cross breeding among subspecies??      (016)

If animals can breed and produce fertile offspring, they are (by definition) 
the same species.     (017)

> 
> 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)
>       • crossing between different species is genetically fatal  .. 
> 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:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> Words are not things.  "Words" representation things if they are nouns.  
>memes are ideas that spreads from person to person?? 
>> 
>> Darwinism and theory of evolution explains how living organisms evolve over  
>few generations according to the needs/usage etc. According to him Giraffe has 
>long neck, because they keep stretching their neck to eat branches and 
>eventually it caused a genetic mutation to  aid survival -- a process known as 
>"natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next 
>generation. 
>> 
>>  Darwin does not take cross pollination ( for lack of better word)  of 
>plants and animals and between different species that happens in one 
>generation and produce offspring of  blended types  into consideration.   A 
>Lion and Tiger may have a Liger for a child.   You can actually cut a branch 
>of one fruit tree and put it  another fruit tree branch stub and tie it up and 
>it may bear the fruit of the first tree kind..  There is all sorts of 
>intervention that happens to change the way species of plants and animal world 
>to evolve  into  something new and different not only by genetic mutation due 
>to thousands of years of  usage or need for survival but due to cross 
>pollination.   I know this is a thesis for genetic decoding not fiction.   
>> 
>> I still have to read the book listed below..
>> 
>> Pavithra    
>>   
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: John Bottoms <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 5:28 PM
>> Subject: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes
>> 
>> Daniel Dennett's next book will be out in a few weeks and I had the 
>> opportunity to hear him talk about how memes obey the tenets of Darwinism.
>> 
>> The title of his book is, "Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking".
>> (not available yet, 
>> http://www.amazon.com/Intuition-Pumps-Other-Tools-Thinking/dp/0393082067)
>> 
>> His argument starts by asking if words are things. Then he argues that 
>> if words are things then we should consider memes as things also. He 
>> goes on to illustrate that memes follow the basic three principles of 
>> Darwinism.
>> 
>> His arguments are compelling and I wonder where they belong in the grand 
>> ontologies of entities. Are memes a new construct, or do memes simply 
>> replicate a known construct?
>> 
>> -John Bottoms
>>   FirstStar Systems
>>   Concord, MA USA
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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    (018)

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes    (019)






_________________________________________________________________
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    (020)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>