Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA20935 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:25:00 GMT From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> Organization: Reborn Technology To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: What are memes made of? Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:14:36 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200002201929.OAA20429@mail4.lig.bellsouth.net> Message-Id: <00022119224300.00625@faichney> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
>From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk>
>
>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
>> >From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.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.
Sorry, Joe, I obviously did not make myself clear. The circularity in your
argument I refer to is described in this paragraph of mine, repeated here for
your convenience:
>> >> 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.
To my summary of your argument, you replied:
>> >Not only that, but it is genetic, not memetic.
Now do you see what I'm getting at?
>What is imitated is behavior, which, as all of us but you apparently
>know, can be genetically mandated.
You're saying that behaviour that is imitated, is 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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 21 2000 - 19:25:05 GMT