Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA10756 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:06:43 GMT From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: meaning in memetics Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:05:32 -0800 Message-ID: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJKEDEEGAA.richard@brodietech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <00021416535701.00818@faichney> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Robin wrote:
<<I'm quite happy with the suggestion that
most -- nearly all, even -- of the study of memetics in humans concerns "the
interplay between self-replicating information and the human mind". But
it's
surely better to say that there are huge differences between avian and human
memetics, than to say that the former isn't memetics at all.>>
If birdsongs evolve, then studying that evolution would probably be
interesting for someone who was interesting in such things. It might even
shed some insight on human cultural evolution. It wouldn't be the first
place I'd look, but I couldn't say it isn't a valid field of study. If you
want to call it "avian memetics" I don't see why anyone would have a problem
with that, if you are talking about non-genetic evolution of bird behavior.
<< Aren't we talking
basically about patterns of behavior replicating via imitation?>>
To me replicating via imitation, which Blackmore addresses quite well in her
book, is a very small part of memetics. My view is that culture evolves in
very complex ways and that there are interesting foci of replication
including memes (mental information, beliefs, attitudes, strategies) and
mind viruses (cultural organisms comprised of memes, artifacts, and people).
<< Why should
memetics be exclusively about the human mind? I recognize your concerns,
but I
don't recognize your right to rule out mine, even if only by saying "that's
not
real memetics".>>
Acknowledged. I certainly do not mean to diminish your enthusiasm for the
problem you are working on. I mean only to underscore the particular value
to us (as humans) of understanding the role our minds play in guiding and
sometimes unwittingly serving the blind forces of evolution.
[RB]
>You believe that there are inherent patterns to be found in the universe. I
>think it is more useful to believe that all patterns are in the eye of the
>beholder.
<<I know you do, and I have difficulty understanding how you can maintain
that
belief alongside a recognition of the value of the scientific method. If
there
are no patterns "out there", how can any model ever predict anything? If
everything was random, there would be no science whatsoever (in fact, no
people, no life...).>>
I see your point. Yet an observer must exist in order to make any scientific
observation and, as Einstein pointed out, everything is relative to the
observer.
Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com www.memecentral.com/rbrodie.htm
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 17 2000 - 16:06:47 GMT