Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA13603 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 9 May 2000 10:04:35 +0100 From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> Organization: Reborn Technology To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Central questions of memetics Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 09:07:27 +0100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3916F62D.CD85DDFD@mediaone.net> Message-Id: <00050909445601.00614@faichney> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Mon, 08 May 2000, Chuck Palson wrote:
>Robin Faichney wrote:
>
[Chuck:]
>> >This ability to copy accounts
>> >for the spread of inventions according to her. She does not once mention the
>> >possibility that people find inventions usefull because they solve problems by
>> >multplying efficiencies of our efforts -- which happens to be the actual reason
>> >why most inventions are eventually accepted.
>>
[Robin:]
>> Are you sure she doesn't take forgranted the fact that being useful is a
>> good strategy for memes? That's certainly what I'd have assumed, and
>> Blackmore does not strike me as in any way stupid.
>
>No, it's not for granted because sometimes she talks about how a meme is in fact
>useful. For example, she says that it helps memes to be useful so that their hosts -
>brains - will adopt them...
I thought you were claiming that she neglects and even denies the usefulness of
inventions?
>I have never heard her speak, so I can't say anything about her intelligence
>based on broader experience. But judging from the book, I would have to say
>that she is quite a bit below average intelligence.
I have heard her speak, in a meeting with Dawkins and Dennett and other big
names, where she was given much respect. I have also heard her speak twice on
BBC radio, once as interviewee and once as presenter. I have read other stuff she's
written, and I've corresponded with her. Her book is published by OUP, the
most prestigious UK academic publisher. You seem aware of her professional
position as a senior academic. The sugguestion that "she is quite a bit below
average intelligence" is frankly ludicrous, and makes me suspect I'm wasting my
time in taking *you* seriously.
>I even had the feeling that there might be some
>psychological dysfunction she was trying to work out.
That's not worthy of comment.
>What puzzles me is why Dawkins gave her such a boost in the intro. I have
>heard him speak, and he seems intelligent.
Something of an understatement -- though perhaps your standards are higher than
those of the rest of us. And don't forget that Dennett called the book a
"surefooted exploration of the prospects" of memetics. Puzzling, eh?
If you have a genuine interest in memetics, and don't have some personal reason
for wanting to put it down, then I suggest you read Dennett's recent book
Darwin's Dangerous Idea. It's by far the most thorough-going examination of
the meme-thing to date, and he's probably the pre-eminent contemporary
philosopher. Then you can let us know what you think of his intelligence.
-- Robin Faichney===============================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 : Tue May 09 2000 - 10:05:01 BST