Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA11023 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:33:53 GMT From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: objections to "memes" Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 01:31:49 -0800 Message-ID: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJKENAEIAA.richard@brodietech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-reply-to: <A4400389479FD3118C9400508B0FF230040BD7@DELTA.newhouse.akzonobel.nl> Importance: Normal Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Actually, I do have quite an affinity for the obvious thought you've put
into your point of view about replicating behaviors. But I do feel the need
to counter, occasionally, your passionate and well-stated arguments for pure
behavioral evolution so as to encourage those who wish to develop science
based on cognitive models.
It is very interesting to focus on those times when people act against their
own "better judgment." What is going on here? This is the area where people
talk about "unconscious choice" and so on. It is perhaps folk psychology,
and as you know I am no scientist or academic; yet I do think I am pretty
smart and believe that people's underlying belief system is extremely
important in determining their behaviors, much more so than any conscious
process in most cases.
Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com www.memecentral.com/rbrodie.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
Of Gatherer, D. (Derek)
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 1:08 AM
To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
Subject: RE: objections to "memes"
Richard:
No one is talking about explaining memetics at a neurobiological level.
Derek:
Maybe not you or I, but quite a lot of people have pretensions in this
direction, or at least claim that they will be eventually vindicated by
neurobiology.
Richard:
If
you collapse "internal" memetics with operational explanations at the
neurobiological level you miss entirely what people are excited about. The
idea is that the contents of people's minds affects their behavior.
Derek:
Of course, but what's new about that? Isn't that just folk psychology?
Surely some of the most interesting aspects of human behaviour are those
where people act against rationality, against their own better judgement,
and so on.
Richard:
If you
refuse to examine the contents of people's minds because you don't have an
instrument that does it with precision, you miss out on the heart of
memetics.
Derek:
Surely the 'heart' of any science, the beauty of any science is the way that
patterns emerge from data, and the more unsuspected the pattern the greater
the feeling of discovery? And that requires precision of measurement. I
think we're probably looking for heart in different places.
===============================================================
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 : Fri Mar 24 2000 - 09:34:05 GMT