ORB Visualization
(soon)
1/28/2004 8:58 PM
I am wondering of I might get a poll type response that helps a larger community to understand where "memetics" is at, in 2004.
How might scientific communities develop a new memetic/biosemiotics "science" and supporting technology?
In particular, who is not interested in extending the current literature on memetics into a more proper science? Nobody, I would imagine.
But what are the issues and limitations?
Michael Lissack has introduced some issues related to the treatment of a "meme" as
1) something that IS a replicator
verses
2) something is indicative of a larger process that involves sign, symbol and interpretant (this is the frame the "ecological/evolutionary psychology", - recognizing that ecological psychology is not the same as ecological psychology)
These alternatives are two sides of a deeper controversy that is part of the larger discussion regarding differences between models of physics and models of biology.
If we are forward looking, how might this "new" memetic/biosemiotics science develop over the next five years?
As a follow on, perhaps one should recognize that the notion of what is a science is challenged by genetics. This challenge is defined within the ecological psychology community. The evolutionary psychology community defines this differently, however it is entirely possible that the two definitions can be reconciled.
So perhaps the similarity between the distinctions between memetic genotype and memetic phenotype is as useful as the distinct between genetic genotype and genetic phenotype.
My sense is that we might look for an appreciative field that allows a positive progression towards tasks that are broadly considered.