On Wed, April 10, 2013 14:59, John Bottoms wrote: (01)
> .... I feel that the field of
> memeology is a young one and as a result there is a bit of chaos
> associated with it, but it offers an opportunity to develop a practice. (02)
FWIW, the field is called mimetics. (03)
> The value of examining memes can be expressed as some metric. I don't
> think we can discount them as worthless if we look at how they are used.
> If commercial revenue associated with memes is the metric, then jingles
> and advertising visuals have a value in the $100M's or higher. (04)
To model these, we would need far narrower concepts than "meme". (05)
> It is not
> general knowledge, but there is a community of developers working to
> understand memes for sentiment analysis. There should be some general
> response to structural questions concerning marketing terms.
> Unfortunately, memes cross just about every discipline as each has their
> own presentations for marketing purposes. (06)
So, you are discussing the narrow discipline of marketing. An ontology
of marketing could usefully have a theory of memes as applied to
marketing. (07)
> I would not want to be
> approached by a Madison Ave executive asking about memes and then
> have to tell them that they are just like any other marketing exercise. (08)
Are you marketing the modeling of memes to Madison Ave.? That
suggests to me exporting coal to Newcastle. As an ontologist, wouldn't
you rather formally model someone else's theory than come up with a
theory and try to sell its use to someone who is unfamiliar with the
encoded concepts? (09)
> I think Lakoff shows us that the structure of an ontology is critically
> important in the ecology of an environment. (010)
> ...
> Agreed, to define the problem statement is important. It is hard to know
> how to proceed without knowing what the goal is. (011)
Agreed. Who wants a formal ontological model for what? (012)
> Notwithstanding, if we
> carry this to its logical consequence, we will wind up with meme
> entities sprinkled across the ontology. (013)
Why is that a logical consequence? We don't have "the ontology";
we create numerous interrelated ontologies. (014)
> Maybe that is correct and fine
> as long as we foresee that this is what will happen. The counter is to
> ask "Is there some advantage of putting all these entities in one place?" (015)
Sure. If someone wants it, create an ontology of marketing memes. (016)
Then in a knowledge base that uses that ontology, sprinkle the concepts
that are to be considered the appropriate types of memes in that context. (017)
> I appreciate JohnS's comments, and did not intend to disparage them.
> JohnS wrote:
> 1. The metaphor underlying the notion of 'meme' is based on an analogy
> to genes. But memes are transmitted by mechanisms that have no
> similarity whatsoever to the mechanisms for transmitting genes. (018)
> JohnB response:
> Dennett actually refers to memes as intellectual viruses. He speaks
> about trying to get rid of an "ear worm", a song that rattles around in
> your head for days. Alternately, his book title invokes "tools". He
> clearly states (from biology) that a surviving mutation of a species is
> an amplifier of the advantage that organism has. For me, this is a
> restatement of the advantage of 3-cornered trade. A new mechanism that
> addresses an opportunity will take advantage of a pent-up market demand. (019)
Another metaphor. Modeling metaphors is tricky. Certain properties
of the initial situation are applicable in the metaphorically similar
situation -- but most properties are not. (020)
> My preferred metaphor for meme is that of an orchid. Memes have some
> attractiveness that makes them useful. In that sense, they are concepts
> with attributes of significance. It appears that humans cooperate with
> memes for some mutual benefit. That still doesn't tell us how to
> recognize them and where to put them in an ontology. (021)
If we have a formal definition, then we can model them.
If we don't know what they are, then we can not. (022)
Once it is clear what we are talking about, then the modeling
should be relatively straight forward. I mean straight forward
to those who are not restricted to DL. Either a type of thing
can be a meme, or there is some property that relates the
meme to a type of thing. In the first case, a type/class is an
instance of Meme, making Meme a meta-class. In the second
case, we have properties whose second argument must accept
types of things as values. (023)
> 2. The similarities between biological evolution and sociological
> evolution are interesting, but based on fundamentally different
> mechanisms. (024)
> Dennett is arguing that that is not the case, they are fairly similar
> when considered in the Darwinian aspects. (025)
Dennett argues a metaphor. But the physical mechanisms are
fundamentally different. (026)
> 3. As a result of points #1 and #2, the analogy that supports the
> metaphor of memes is incomplete and unreliable. (027)
Most analogies/metaphors are incomplete and unreliable. (028)
> Since I don't fully agree with you on #1 and #2, then I'll withhold my
> vote on this one. (029)
> 4. The most notable characteristic of memes is their association with
> some word or phrase. (030)
Often this is the case, but in many cases (housing styles, music styles,
cooking styles, styles of painting, ...) the words came later (at least
in pre corporate-dominated societies). (031)
> Lexicography is a more appropriate science for
> studying the evolution of memes than biology. (032)
In that the spread of words and word senses is similar to the spread
of "memes", yes. I agree. (033)
-- doug foxvog (034)
> We can agree that all experience is based on sensa, does that make
> progress in this arena? I'm not enamored of lexicography in that it does
> not capture the affect or emphasis particularly well. (035)
> This forum has not addressed any structures or uses associated with
> social media or sentiment analysis. This is a high grown area, and it
> seems we should understand how the knowledge for these systems
> should be structured. Yes Pavithra, it is a social concept. Now, does
> that reduce to a previously solved problem?
>
> -John Bottoms
> FirstStar Systems
> Concord, MA USA (036)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (037)
|