On Apr 10, 2013, at 11:47 AM, jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: (01)
> Hi - It might help some of us if a "model" was being proposed, one organized
>by someone's notion of 'meme' I suppose. You know, I've proposed a concrete
>model based on time-worn elements of a story, projected as the basis for
>modelling topics, fundamental units of wikis, but surprisingly there was zero
>reaction. I dunno, maybe I got off at the wrong stop! (02)
I think it may have been the wrong floor, way too high for most of us :-). (03)
Pat (04)
>
> -john
>
>
> On 10.04.2013 11:07, Pavithra wrote:
>
>> Dr. Hayes
>>
>> Based on wikipedia definition of meme, it can be modeled as a concept.
>It is a social concept.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
>>
>>
>> You can call all “words” as “things”. And all things as words at your
>discretion. But defies the English language, & meaning of the word "thing"
>and how it is described in wikipedia.
>> Wikipedia has documented meaning of the word "word" and "thing" as follows.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word
>>
>> Using definitions of those two words, I can not derive that all words are
>things in a logical manner. However I can say that nouns are things.
>>
>> But am not the authority on wikepedia or English language. So it is at your
>discretion, ( In other words, you are the adviser). However, In traditional
>modeling, for example relational and Object Oriented world such assumptions
>leads to many to many relationships and causes infinite loops in programming.
>>
>> Who is "us" ?? Us is Ontolog group and OWL, UML modelers..
>>
>> About Darwinism, As you said, DNA and genetic engineering did not exist at
>the time of definition. Felidae & Canidae or Cats and Dogs can not breed an
>offspring and it is fatal if they do so, since they belong to different
>species Who knows what happens in the future or happened millions of years
>ago. I speculate about such things. I have no proof one way or the other at
>hand. ( A Korsak looks like cross breed between a cat & a dog, I may call
>it a cat ). I will read or re-read the books that you suggested.
>>
>> Pavithra
>>
>>
>> From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
>> To: Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:35 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes
>>
>>
>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Pavithra wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> But they are also in the actual world, and can be studied empirically like
>any other phenomenon.
>>
>> > · 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)
>>
>> All words are things. Not all words *describe* things, maybe.
>>
>> > · Nouns are a subset of words.
>> > · Memes are ideas / concepts, real or imaginary, proven or
>unproven.
>> >
>> > Question is : do we need to model meme??
>>
>> Who is "we" and what is being "modeled"?
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> >
>> > About Darwinism, Americans use the word Darwinism from a scientific
>evolution point of view vs theological, god made us, changed us ( mutation)
>etc.
>>
>> American scientists use the term the same way other scientists do.
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> Until recently, the only intervention available was artificial *selection*,
>which follows the natural process but amplifies the effects.
>>
>> > Grafting & genetic engineering are human intervention. My point was
>Darwinism did not include human intervention, or cross breeding among
>subspecies.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> > You mentioned that his theory includes cross breeding among subspecies??
>>
>> If animals can breed and produce fertile offspring, they are (by definition)
>the same species.
>>
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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 (05)
------------------------------------------------------------
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 (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|