Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA23080 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:01:08 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: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 16:49:35 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200002211940.OAA09081@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> Message-Id: <00022216575404.00473@faichney> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
>> 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,
Intentionality is the point at issue, so it is invalid to invoke it as part of
your argument. That's called "begging the question", and it is why your
argument is circular.
> 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.
Matters of degree are irrelevant. The point is one of principle. Information
is passed from bird to bird via a learning process, however circumscribed.
That information persists, though gradually evolving, over generations.
>It
>communicates nothing which is not instinctually circumscribed,
>and neither points to a referent nor is chosen by its issuer.
Irrelevant.
>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.
You do your case no good by resorting to such tactics.
>> 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.
Most people view "learned" and "innate" as mutually exclusive.
-- 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 : Tue Feb 22 2000 - 17:01:11 GMT