Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA14488 (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 13:53:27 +0100 Message-ID: <3917C48B.2736FEC0@mediaone.net> Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 08:55:56 +0100 From: Chuck Palson <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Central questions of memetics References: <3916F62D.CD85DDFD@mediaone.net> <00050909445601.00614@faichney> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Robin Faichney wrote:
>
> >
> >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?
She does. The fax/OS systems is a clear example. However she occasionally talks about a
use here and there, implying that there are other reasons. I would still say that she is
trying to say that most are useless - which is why she can say that most of what goes on
in her head is just "daft", and she can then devote the final chapters on how to get rid
of this plague of useless memes.
>
>
> >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 can only judge by Meme Machine which is demonstrably a work of ideology, not science.
Perhaps you can find the sense in the examples I have provided. If you can, I will
concede that you are far more intelligent than I am, and hope that you will agree to be
my teacher.
As to why she has sounded intelligent in the past, I suspect you are right simply because
I can't see how she could have gotten a position had she had the quality of ideas
represented in Meme Machine. But I'm sure you know that people can go off the deep end; I
am not the first to note that much of the book is just a Bhuddist ideological tract, and
I got the distinct feeling that that is the direction she has gone to get to the deep
end. And as for others like Dawkins and Dennet finding her notions intelligent, as I said
before people who are primarily biologists can make mistakes about how to apply social
science. E Wilson, for example, in his 1975 tome, made plenty of them -- which much to
his credit he has corrected.
>
> >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.
>
How does his ideas compare with Searle's?
>
> --
> 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 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 - 13:53:49 BST