Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA15260 (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 15:50:13 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB15D@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Central questions of memetics Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 15:48:07 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Returning the thanks for your comments.
I think your point about negativity is right, and is exactly where I come in
in relation to media effects, because aprt from a few exceptions the vast
majroity of media effects research is about negative effects, that there is
somehow something inherently wrong with media influence. So you get study
after study on the negative influence of media violence or pornography or
political bias, and even in intentionally educational programming possible
negative effects are raised (as with the extremely successful children's
programme 'Teletubbies' in the UK).
Of course, we've seen problems before in the proponents of new theories
themselves often being unable to really accept the consequences of the
theory for their own beliefs (cf. Darwin, and more overtly Wallace, on the
consequences for natural selection on one part of religious belief, the
'special' status of humans), so perhaps Blackmore is no different from some
of these people. After all, there's no such thing as happy philosopher!
(save perhaps for the hedonists!).
As a final aside, it is a well known fact that British are the sanest people
in the Universe - even the little grey men in the Reticulan Galaxy say so
!!!!! (isn't it funny how it's always little grey men who abduct people, not
little grey women?) Serioulsy, the concept of sanity itself quite clearly
has memetic properties, as Foucault's analysis of "madness" shows how such a
concept has changed historically, and indeed to fit into your central
concern, has been deliberately utilised as a tool of power and control (the
most obvious example being witch hunts).
I suppose removing intent, equally removes normative judgements- i.e. should
or shouldn't something persist. Partly I think science lies to remove
intentionality from systems because it removes 'why' questions, which can't
be answered because why questions assume motivation, and replaces them with
'how' questions, which can be answered because they examine processes that
lead to states of affairs.
Thanks again,
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Chuck Palson
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2000 10:04 am
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Central questions of memetics
>
>
>
> 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 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 - 15:50:35 BST