Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA18470 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 20 Feb 2000 19:31:04 GMT Message-Id: <200002201929.OAA20429@mail4.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:33:25 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: What are memes made of? In-reply-to: <00022008402703.00482@faichney> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk>
Organization: Reborn Technology
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: What are memes made of?
Date sent: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 08:37:19 +0000
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> >From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk>
> >Organization: Reborn Technology
> >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >Subject: Re: What are memes made of?
> >Date sent: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 18:32:50 +0000
> >Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >
> >> On Sat, 19 Feb 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> >> >> >The interplay between the fixed genetics of the birds and the
> >> >> >variability of various birds' environment, especially in the
> >> >> >phenomenon of imprinting (which was first discovered in bird
> >> >> >young), which is a genetically mandated critical period during
> >> >> >which imitation patterns are set, is enough to explain the small
> >> >> >differences in birdsong which occur.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why does the fact that imitation occurs in the context of imprinting make
> >> >> birdsong non-memetic?
> >> >>
> >> >Because it is circumscribed by instinct; imprinting during critical
> >> >periods is innately and genetically mandated.
> >>
> >> So to summarise your argument: birdsong is not a counter example to
> >> the claim that memetics is necessarily intentional because it is not
> >> intentional, and therefore non-memetic.
> >>
> >Not only that, but it is genetic, not memetic.
>
> Sorry, you seem to have missed my point: your argument is circular.
>
What is genetic is not memetic. Period. Finis. Q.E.D. End of
sentence. This assertion is not circular; it is a single, simple, and
irrefutable definitional statement of apodictic and irretrievable fact.
Memes are not genes, which are not memes. Got it? If you don't,
your proposed "memetic" ontology will be worse than useless
(although a genetics class may get some adulterated mileage from
it).
>
> Also, another question: are you saying that because the mechanism by which
> imitation takes place is genetic, what's imitated is also genetic? If so,
> maybe you and Wade have quite a lot in common!
>
What is imitated is behavior, which, as all of us but you apparently
know, can be genetically mandated.
> --
> Robin Faichney
>
>
> 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 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 : Sun Feb 20 2000 - 19:31:09 GMT