Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA13229 (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 20:03:35 GMT Message-Id: <200003052001.PAA00432@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 14:05:31 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Monkeys stone herdsman in Kenya In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.20000320113446.007f7cd0@rongenet.sk.ca> References: <200003041933.OAA00147@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: 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
Send 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.
>
A cognitive environment is different from a natural environment, in
that it is perfused with conscious selfawareness (self-referentiality,
recursivity), signification (meaning) and intention (purpose). Some
principles therefore differ. We can neither accept the gene nor the
virus analogy whole cloth. As for us not creating better designs,
can you point out someone who has never figured out in his or her
life how to do, say or make something better than they did before?
We do not ALL have to improve ALL designs to be human, but the
attempt is being made to improve upon practically all designs by a
goodly number of people practically all the time.
>
> 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.
>
You have some emotional investment in your position, to no small
degree because it is yours; I can understand that, having seen a lot
of it on this list. However, being committed does not entail being
correct. Being emphatic about something proves something, all
right, but the something it proves is about you (your belief in X)
rather than your position (X).
>
> 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 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 - 20:03:40 GMT