Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA07683 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:43:22 GMT Message-Id: <200002281842.NAA23977@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:45:46 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Monkeys stone herdsman in Kenya In-reply-to: <B0000272984@htcompmail.htcomp.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Monkeys stone herdsman in Kenya
Date sent: Sat, 26 Feb 00 08:51:39 -0000
From: "Mark M. Mills" <mmills@htcomp.net>
To: "Memetics List" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Joe,
>
> >> Are you suggesting that baboon DNA encodes group rock throwing?
> >>
> >No,...
>
> Ok. At least we agree on this.
>
> >.. just the physical ability to throw rocks and the imitative ability
> >to learn from witnessing others...
>
> By this, I assume you consider 'imitative ability' is encoded in DNA.
>
> Is that correct?
>
Yep. When flatworms are trained to jump by means of electic
shock, and their bodies are ground up and fed to other flatworms,
the new ones jump.
>
> >...imitation, in and of
> >itself, does not constitute memesis. Baboons are not consciously
> >self-aware, ... They do not,
> >however, create a novel signification ... and are not modifying
> >them [rocks] into something previously
> >nonexistent... They do not appear
> >to be in possession of plans...
>
> Based on the above, it seems your definition of 'meme' requires the
> preexistence of
>
> 1. self-awareness
> 2. novel signification
> 3. planned modification of the environment
>
> Thus, imitation alone can exist without requiring a memetic support
> system. The memetic support system follows the emergence of
> self-awareness, signing and planning. Turned around a bit, memes are the
> product of self-awareness, signing and planning.
>
> Am I interpreting this correctly?
>
Not quite. Technology predates language, but the (beginnings of)
creation and use of simple tools can be taught by means of
imitation. I see the capacity for memesis as developing during of
the massive cortical growth that accompanied the evolution of
manual manipulative ability and the hand-eye coordination
necessary to construct and use tools. As tools came to represent
their uses, they came to be the first human-created (non-natural)
significations. It's a coevolutionary thing. Language came later, co-
opting the evolutionarily elaborated hand-eye coordination system
for use by the mouth-ear (speak-listen) nexus. Self-awareness is
not only necessary for there to be memetic transmission/reception
of an intended and comprehended meaning encoded in a common
symbol system, but especially for there to be memetic evolution
through cultural selection, for the arena of such selection is the
cognition, signification and intention of the freely choosing agent,
and unaware choices are not free and thus cannot memetically
select between competing alternatives. Just as the environment is
the facilitator of physical (genetic) selection, our mentation,
signification and intention is the facilitator of memetic (cultural)
evolution. Unconscious culture is a contradiction in terms.
>
> 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 : Mon Feb 28 2000 - 18:43:25 GMT