Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA11553 (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 21:50:46 GMT From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: meaning in memetics Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 13:49:36 -0800 Message-ID: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJMEDOEGAA.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) In-reply-to: <20000217211759.AAA29094@camail2.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.215]> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Wade wrote:
<<The very fact that there _are_ a plethora of religions (from different
environments) argues for adaptation from a specific tendency. Just as
there are any number of bird songs, and any number of housing styles, and
clothing styles.>>
Again, no one disagrees that there are genetic tendencies that memetic
evolution is built upon. This is evolutionary psychology.
<< Culture is always and forever an adaptation.>>
A genetic adaptation? Then why does the average American couple have 1.5
children? Do you really believe that modern culture has evolved in the
interest of selfish genes? I find that claim astounding. Don't you give
credence to the theory that culture has "taken off" and evolved in many
cases against the interest of genes?
<<But I am not arguing that a memetic analyzation is not valid, indeed, it
may well be the only way to show what actually _is_ being adapted to and
from.>>
I'm unclear on your meaning. When you use the word "adaptation" I infer that
you are talking Darwinian/Dawkinsian adaptation, i.e., for the benefit of
selfish genes. How can memetic analysis show anything about genetic
adaptation? That would seem to end with evolutionary psychology and memetics
would pick up from there.
<<What function of communication (or territorialness, or power, or
ignorance) gives rise to chain letters? The actual spread of chain
letters, is, IMHO, irrelevant and only peripherally interesting.>>
Am I to assume you feel the same lack of interest in understanding the
spread of religion, business, government, and popular culture? I'll refer
you to pp. 99-101 of VIRUS OF THE MIND for my thoughts on the mechanics of
chain letters. You'll find a copy in the Harvard Law School library.
<<I'm not at all convinced memetics has
'explained' anything, and I am much more convinced it can only analyze,
albeit analyze usefully, such phenomena.>>
I don't know the difference between "explain," which you claim memetics
cannot do, and "analyze usefully," which you claim it can.
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 - 21:50:50 GMT