Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA16756 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:34:57 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000315194023.0080d100@rongenet.sk.ca> X-Sender: hawkeye@rongenet.sk.ca (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 19:40:23 -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: <200003051947.OAA09450@mail1.lig.bellsouth.net> References: <3.0.5.32.20000320114722.0080b100@rongenet.sk.ca> <200003042356.SAA15462@mail5.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 01:48 PM 05/03/00 -0600, Joe E. Dees wrote:
>
>> At 06:00 PM 04/03/00 -0600, Joe E. Dees wrote:
>> >We know that anything which is modified for a chosen purpose
>> >becomes cultural rather than natural, and that there must be an
>> >internal memetic plan or design behind the external memetic
>> >physical-instantiation-by-modification, unless it is entirely random,
>> >in which case it will make no sense and serve no discernible
>> >purpose
>>
>> Oh really?
>>
>Yes, really.
So an English tit pecking the tops off milk bottles must have a culture
(after all, the bottles are "modified for a chosen purpose". Where do you
place the effects of conditioning in all this or does conditioning serve
"no discerible purpose"?
>>
>> Please explain the difference between "cultural" and "natural".
>> When, for example, am I doing a "cultural" thing and when am I doing a
>> non-cultural "natural" thing?
>>
>Hokay. For living systems:
>1) Natural = genetically circumscribed, i.e. instinctual (such as our
linguistic
>capacity in general).
>2) Cultural = arbitrary and by mutual convention rather than being either
>materially or causally necessary (such as the particular tongue(s) one
speaks).
You appear to be presenting a false dichotomy here. To a cultural being
memetic evolution is no more artificial than genetic evolution.
>>
>> I submit that, at a mass level, cultural change is random and those changes
>> that replicate are those with greater survival value: survival from the
>> point of view of the meme, not necessarily the host.
>>
> Memes are not conscious, as people are; strictly speaking,
>memes neither have nor can have "point(s) of view."
I was, of course, speaking metaphorically. It is sometimes useful to look
at things from the "point of view" of the gene, meme or whatever.
Cultural
>change is far from random, as technology and science, as well as
>the generalization of human rights to more humans and the
>standard of living, have all undeniably progressed.
So you are saying that cultures change by intelligent design because of
increased complexity? I guess the same reasoning could be applied to
genetic evolution (and has been by the fundamentalists).
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 : Thu Mar 16 2000 - 01:35:09 GMT