Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA12776 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 5 Mar 2000 17:29:52 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000320113446.007f7cd0@rongenet.sk.ca> X-Sender: hawkeye@rongenet.sk.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:34:46 -0600 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk, memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Lloyd Robertson <hawkeye@rongenet.sk.ca> Subject: Re: Monkeys stone herdsman in Kenya In-Reply-To: <200003041933.OAA00147@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> References: <3.0.5.32.20000319102139.00804a70@rongenet.sk.ca> <200003012113.QAA29865@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
At 01:37 PM 04/03/00 -0600, Joe E. Dees wrote:
Lloyd wrote:
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.
>> >>
Joe wrote:
>> >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.
>> >>
Lloyd:
>> 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?
>>
Joe:
>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.
>>
You are using a different language than most of us, Joe. A mutation is
generally thought of as a random occurance, not a designed thing. By your
definition, memeology would not apply to large numbers of the human race
who do not create better designs. In your enthusiasm for avoiding a Type I
error, you embrace Type II.
My three conditions for satisfying the hypothesis that the monkeys in
question demonstrated memetic behavior (by which we can infer some kind of
mental process) satisfy your concerns about variation and permenance. In
addition, the possibility of Skinnerian conditioning as an alternate
explanation is considered. Your added condition is only an example of
experimenter bias.
respectfully,
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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 05 2000 - 17:29:58 GMT