Hmm, perhaps your own "meme" is oriented a bit towards belittlement. (01)
Thanks for the input though. (02)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:00 AM
>To: jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Cc: [ontolog-forum]
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes
>
>
>
>On Apr 10, 2013, at 11:47 AM, jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> 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!
>
>I think it may have been the wrong floor, way too high for
>most of us :-).
>
>Pat
>
>>
>> -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/0
>393082067)
>>> >>
>>> >> 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
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>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
>
>
>
>
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|