Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA10437 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:35:02 GMT Message-Id: <200003041933.OAA00147@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:37:00 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Monkeys stone herdsman in Kenya In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.20000319102139.00804a70@rongenet.sk.ca> References: <200003012113.QAA29865@mail6.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: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:21:39 -0600
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk, memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: Lloyd Robertson <hawkeye@rongenet.sk.ca>
Subject: Re: Monkeys stone herdsman in Kenya
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> At 03:17 PM 01/03/00 -0600, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> >> >I do not think that memetic evolution can occur without selection,
> >> >which can only occur in the memetic environment (which is a
> >> >cognitive one where candidates compete to be reMEMbered) by
> >> >means of conscious choice.
> >>
> >> I agree with you on this point, Joe. Further, I agree that you have
> >> presented a powerful argument suggesting that monkey stone throwing may not
> >> be an example of memetic change. Your argument is so powerful, in fact,
> >> that it puts the onus on those favoring a memetic explanation to
> demonstrate:
> >>
> >> 1) that this species (I am not even sure we have agreed on
> >> that) did not previously stone herdsmen they met at watering holes (that
> >> deals with your "competitor" point);
> >> 2) that this change, if successful, was repeated (we may infer
> >> from the repetition "reMEMbered"); and,
> >> 3) that the change is replicated horizontally and/or
> >> vertically (to deal with possible Skinnerian conditioning).
> >>
> >> If the above three conditions are satisfied then you will have to grant
> >> that these monkeys (whoever they are) have a culture.
> >>
> >If in addition they modify the rocks so that they throw better or hurt
> >more (creating novel meaning by design) and transport rocks to
> >places the babboons wish to defend but where they do not
> >naturally exist so that they are available to be thrown from there,
> >(rudimentary toolkit behavior) we may agree on this.
> >>
> My three conditions involve change, repetition and transference. You appear
> to be not satisified with these three conditions for the existence of
> memetic evolution. Why?
>
Because for memesis to be said to be taking place, there must be
internal ideation of the meme (this is where intentional memetic
mutations occur - one thinks of a better design, or a better way to
create a design), which can be behaviorally demonstrated by
external modification of objects to conform to some internally
conceived design, and for evolution to be said to be taking place,
there must be variations to serve as fodder for selection, and there
must be a perduring substrate of change; in other words, culture
cannot be fleeting and confined to specific and uncommon
episodes, but must be a continuing part of experience, or else
there is nothing present to which change can apply itself, which
can be demonstrated by rudimentary toolkit behavior.
>
> Lloyd
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Sat Mar 04 2000 - 19:35:06 GMT