Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA20993 (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 19:41:59 GMT Message-Id: <200002211940.OAA09081@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:44:19 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: What are memes made of? In-reply-to: <00022119224300.00625@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: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:14:36 +0000
Send 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.
>
Birdsong not only intends no objects and possesses no chosen
meaning, but its small variations are explained by the interface of a
fixed genetic imprinting during a critical period in avian infancy and
the influence of a slightly variable caregiving environment. It
communicates nothing which is not instinctually circumscribed,
and neither points to a referent nor is chosen by its issuer. You
cling to supposed "avian memetics" like a drowning sailor to a
sinking stick, because there is nothing else you can find to grab on
to.
>
> 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?
>
See and disagree, for the above reasons.
>
> >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??
>
When the imitation is mandated to occur only within critical periods
and is genetically tightly circumscribed as to scope and range,
yes. People may make up different word strings all their lives;
human languages are open-ended systems, capable of unlimited
possibilities for signification. Where's your proof that any species'
birdsong modifies outside the genetically mandated critical period,
or is capable in any case of any more than a tiny number of very
similar "variations"?
> --
> 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 : Mon Feb 21 2000 - 19:42:03 GMT