Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA23840 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:02:29 GMT Message-Id: <200002222355.SAA28229@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:04:55 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: What are memes made of? In-reply-to: <00022216575404.00473@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: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 16:49:35 +0000
Send 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.
>
Yes, I maintain that the possibility of both meaning and intention
are critical to the ability to choose which would allow for memetic
evolution and the establishment of any kind of culture. You have
not proven (and cannot) that genetically mandated critical period
imprinted instinctual birdsong with slight environmental fluctuations
qualifies as a memetic counterexample. The other point at issue is
meaning. What do communicated birdsongs MEAN, and does a
slight variation in pitch concatenation correspond to a chosen avian
meaning change? Answer: the birdsongs are genetically mandated
instinctual signals of territorial possession or of a search for a mate
or a receptiveness to mating overtures. There is no meaning
change happening; the slightly differentially imprinted melodies
mean nothing different.
>
> > 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.
>
Information must inform, that is, it must MEAN something, and the
variations in birdsong must mean something different, that is,
correspond to differing meanings. Otherwise, we're not talking
information here. You have manifestly failed to prove that this is
indeed the case, and the onus is on you to do so.
>
> >It
> >communicates nothing which is not instinctually circumscribed,
> >and neither points to a referent nor is chosen by its issuer.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
Decisive.
>
> >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.
>
The truth does sting and the bit dog barks.
>
> >> 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.
>
When what is innate is a capacity to mimic certain tightly
prescribed actions during a precisely circumscribed critical period,
we can speak of innate. Obviously, hippos, with differing genes,
cannot mimic the birdsong, any more that avians can converse in
fluent cantonese, but we can whistlke their melodies - and therein
lies the difference.
>
> --
> 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 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 00:02:33 GMT