Re: Monkeys stone herdsman in Kenya

From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Thu Mar 16 2000 - 01:55:46 GMT

  • Next message: Dan Plante: "Re: Monkeys stone herdsman in Kenya"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA16802 (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 01:53:47 GMT
    Message-Id: <200003160152.UAA16418@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net>
    From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 19:55:46 -0600
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: Monkeys stone herdsman in Kenya
    In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.20000315194023.0080d100@rongenet.sk.ca>
    References: <200003051947.OAA09450@mail1.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: 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
    Send 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"?
    > >>
    They are not being modified for a purpose, for they are not
    subsequently being used for a purpose, i.e., as tools. Conditioning
    can be done to flatworms; innovation requires creativity and
    initiative.
    >
    > >> 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.
    >
    This sounds like the polluters' logic that their effluent is natural,
    because we are, and therefore everything we produce is natural.
    Your position would remove any meaning whatsoever from the word
    "cultural".
    > >>
    > >> 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).
    >
    WE are, to a greater or lesser degree, our own intelligent
    designers, memetically speaking, and advances accumulate and
    cross-fertilize; this requires no transcendent woo-woo, just our
    immanent and consciously self-aware signifying and intentional
    selves. In the case of genetics, we will assume that role soon
    enough.
    >
    > 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 : Thu Mar 16 2000 - 01:53:56 GMT