Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA14968 (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 15:01:56 +0100 Message-ID: <3917D482.6CEF718D@mediaone.net> Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 10:04:02 +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: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB15B@inchna.stir.ac.uk> 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
Vincent Campbell wrote:
> Blackmore's book is an effort to write a popular science introduction to
> memetics, not a detailed academic treatise, and I think she does weaken her
> arguments in places through tryig to relate her ideas to the everyday, thus
> revealing her particular British academic prejudices (many of which I
> share).
Thanx for acknowledging that there is indeed weakness and prejudice. I have seen
lots of attempts to bring science to the public, and they are, as you say,
*necessarily* prone to some distortion. I always take that into consideration.
But there are those that remain faithful to some scientific core. I don't see
any of that with Blackmore. We in the US have been treated to all kinds of books
that claim to be about intelligent design of the universe that entirely ignore
any of the powerful Darwinian arguments -- and they are written by people
trained in the sciences and who may be quite good in their narrowly define
fields. But although past success is a good predictor of future success, it's
never 100%. At the risk of sounding terribly impolite (have I already offended
British sensibilities by openly wondering about her sanity and intelligence?),
it looks to me like she lost her sanity when writing this book. I hope it's not
permanent.
>
>
> But let me take up your point about fax machines. I don't quite see what
> the obsession is with what Blackmore says. She quite clearly does not say
> fax machines are useless (just as Bogie doesn't say 'Play it again, Sam' but
> that persists). 'Wanting' something is not good enough in a court of law
> ("I killed him because I wanted to" is not a defence) let alone science.
> You have to ask what is the basis of that want. In terms of need, exactly
> what kind of need is a fax machine providing that we cannot cope without?
> The 'need' is a very particular kind of communication (photocopies down the
> phone). Now the next question does leave room for value-judgement, and that
> is 'is the need significant enough to warrant the extent of a phenomena that
> actually exists?' Blackmore's point is not just about fax machines, but
> about how we (in the West at least) are surrounded by a multiplicity of
> communication technologies which can't seem to get enough of, even when lots
> of the technologies have either very specific functions, or reproduce
> functions. Mobile phones seem to me a better example. They are
> proliferating at a tremendous rate- is that rate a product of people having
> a genuine need that previously hasn't been fulfilled, or is there something
> else going on? Is it really true that we couldn't cope before mobile
> phones, and now that you can't cope without one? One argument is that the
> 'needs' provided for by particular technologies are constructed by the
> technologies themselves (McLuhan's view) which in turn shape society.
> Certainly it is difficult to produce anything more than tenuous genetic
> advantage arguments for the prliferation of mobile phones or fax machines,
> in the same way as for the extent- not necessarily the existence- of
> organised sport or religion.
You are confirming my hunch of how deeply the book expresses an anti-technology
prejudice. And I in fact share some of your concerns. But as much as I would
sometimes like to see the world stop and take a breath, it won't happen. So I do
not deny that you do raise some important concerns. We might indeed ask
ourselves is the net effect of all the technology is negative. But that is a
very big question and requires lots of very careful thinking. She shows not the
slightest evidence of any such careful thinking - which *can* be done in a
popular book to a far greater extent than she has done.
As for McLuan, I suspect he has focused only on the unintended negative
consequences of new technologies. People adopt new technologies by focusing on
what they can do more efficiently. He only has it half right by focusing on the
negative.
>
>
> The problem is that genes are limited by the physics of the Earth, so
> animals and plants can only be so small or so big, and only occupy
> particular locations. Is the same true of memes? Are there limits on the
> extent of a meme's proliferation (presumably the selfplex has achieved the
> biological limit, being in everybody's brain- save perhaps those people
> "raised" by wolves, and Tarzan!), especially given the nature of the newest
> of the communication technologies, that we are all currently communicating
> through.
>
Actually, there probably *are* limits, although they would be difficult to
calculate precisely. The problem is that in a large complex society where there
are many issues that affect the individual, each person can only deal with X
amount of issues. So what goes into the public arena as an issue must achieve a
salience. Public figures do some pretty weird things to get their issue shoved
forward, as I am sure you know (and I know even better in the US!). So at any
one time, everyone is trying to get their only issues included as subissues in
the main issue. At some point there has to be a limit. So yes, you are right in
an abstract sense - the brain is only so big.
>
> So, it was the extent of fax machines not their use that I feel Blackmore
> was questioning.
>
Yes - I understand your point. I'm afraid it still buffudles me to see an
academic use words in such an imprecise way even correcting for its popular
nature. And as for the field in general, no one in this list has answered my
central question - what is the advantage of treating memes as having an
independent existence instead of being tools that people use to solve the
problems of existence -- tools, albeit, that *always* have unintended
consequences.
Thanx for your thoughtful reply.
>
> Vincent
>
> > ----------
> > From: Chuck Palson
> > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Sent: Monday, May 8, 2000 9:04 pm
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: Re: Central questions of memetics
> >
> >
> >
> > Oliver Kullman wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Actually she doesn't say these things are useless, she says we don't
> > need
> > > them (it's a little different):
> > > Blackmore The Meme Machine page: 28:
> > > "So why do we have fax machines? Why Coca-Cola cans and wheelybins?
> > Why
> > > Windows 98 and felt-tip pens. I want answers to these specific
> > questions.
> > > "because we want them" is not a sufficient answer. "Because we need
> > them" is
> > > clearly untrue. <..> In later chapters I shall explain how a memetic
> > > approach can help."
> >
> > As you say, " It's a little different", and I agree, with the emphasis on
> > little. After all - no two words ever have the same meaning. But she IS
> > saying
> > we don't need them, which is still as strange as saying they are useless.
> > Also,
> > how do you interpret "'because we want them' is not a sufficient answer"?
> > If she
> > has no idea of why people need faxes and computer operating systems, then
> > at the
> > very least how well does she understand human behavior? Did she ever ask
> > them
> > why they wanted them? Or did she ever ask herself why she uses them?
> >
> > Frankly, I judge it to be more than just a question of elementary
> > observational
> > competence. She is presumably a person that has been trained to use words
> > precisely in academic contexts, and that's why she has her position.
> > Writing
> > such stuff makes me seriously doubt if she is interested at all in
> > science. She
> > may have once been interested, but it looks to me like she has veered off
> > into
> > some pretty intense fantasy.
> >
> > I might have let it pass as a joke, however, if I didn't find the book
> > liberally
> > peppered with many other bizarre statements. Another astounding example
> > in a
> > much later chapter is her use of the evolutionary term benefit to mean
> > relaxation for the organism. Trees, she says, must compete with weeds at
> > first
> > to grow, so they grow fast to get up above the weeds. But being above the
> > weeds
> > isn't really a benefit because each tree still has to compete with other
> > trees!
> > So the trees don't even benefit, only the genes, presumably because the
> > trees
> > die. I guess she doesn't know that the genes of that tree also die. Nor
> > does she
> > know that relaxation from competition has nothing to do with the concept
> > of
> > benefit. This is a woman who claims to be an evolutionary psychologist.
> >
> > Again, however, this is just one other example that sticks in my mind. She
> > never
> > justifies anything she says, not even with a thin veneer of scientific
> > method.
> > Why, for example, does she say that there are many more memes than there
> > are
> > homes for memes? If memes originate in brains, which is the only place I
> > can
> > imagine them originating, then they already have a home when they are
> > born! Do
> > other brains want to use the meme? It depends on how useful they are. It's
> > both
> > as simple and complex as that. If I invent the meme "cetlle", I know from
> > the
> > start it won't get anywhere unless I am retarded. But she wants to talk
> > about
> > homes and memes and shortage of space and how this is the primary reason
> > our
> > brains are so big. In this regard, she does not even seriously examine
> > some of
> > the other competing theories on this which are quite credible. If I were
> > writing
> > a book that claimed to have major implications, I would do my homework,
> > and she
> > should know by now in her career that she should do the same. It looks to
> > me
> > like she has chosen to ignore science in her quest for truth -- which is
> > fine,
> > but it should not be mistaken for science.
> >
> > >
> > > Oliver Kullman
> > >
> > > ===============================================================
> > > 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 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 - 15:02:16 BST