Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA29598 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 25 Feb 2000 04:13:03 GMT Message-Id: <200002250413.XAA28807@mail1.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 22:15:30 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Monkeys stone herdsman in Kenya In-reply-to: <B0000218928@htcompmail.htcomp.net> References: <200002241956.OAA07014@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Date sent: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:11:09 -0500
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: "Mark M. Mills" <mmills@htcomp.net>
Subject: Re: Monkeys stone herdsman in Kenya
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Joe,
>
> At 01:59 PM 2/24/00 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >That they co-operated in such an action is not
> >necessarily an example of memetics; wolf packs cooperate in
> >serially chasing down prey. Cooperation can be genetically
> >encoded.
>
> Based on your comments, I am assuming you have concluded that wolf pack
> behavior (serial chasing down prey) is coded into their DNA.
>
> Are you suggesting that baboon DNA encodes group rock throwing?
>
No, just the physical ability to throw rocks and the imitative ability
to learn from witnessing others (i.e. humans) do the same, or from
watching stones roll or fall from a height, but imitation, in and of
itself, does not constitute memesis. Baboons are not consciously
self-aware, but neither are they dumb, and they are other-aware (a
condition which chronologically precedes self-awareness and
object-permanence in maturing human infants. I believe that they
are indeed intending to hit the herdsmen (although I doubt if they
conceived of and planned such an attack in advance). They do not,
however, create a novel signification (one that does not exist in the
natural world), any more than chimps do when they swing sticks at
fruit on trees. Both species are appropriating immediately ready-to-
hand (or paw) natural objects for the purpose of imitative bodily
extension, and are not modifying them into something previously
nonexistent which is designed and built using an ideal mental
template for a particularly conceived purpose. They do not appear
to be in possession of plans for the use of such objects in the
absence of the objects or situations in which the behavior occurs,
for you did not indicate that they carried throwing stones with them
from place to place (neither do chimps carry sticks in a like
manner - the assembly of a toolkit seems far beyond the capacity
of both species). It is not understood whether their throwing styles
evolve, or whether different bands of baboons throw stones
differently. However, such behavior is more cognitively complex
than the simple use of the body, and indicates that they are further
on the road which leads ultimately to memesis than most species.
>
> Mark
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Fri Feb 25 2000 - 04:13:09 GMT