Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA00792 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 12 May 2000 12:59:43 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB184@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Fwd: Did language drive society or vice versa? Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 12:57:50 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
This reminds me of two simple points about humans' mathematical abilities.
First, catching a ball. Very young children can't do this, but before long
most children learn to catch a ball. Now simply in terms of the mathematics
of catching a ball (I don't pretend to understand it), it involves quite
complex calculations that go on in the human brain in the few seconds that
you have in order to catch the ball.
Second, it's widely understood that human perceptions of probability, on the
other hand, is extremely poor. Our inability to recognise probabilities
plays a big part in widespread beliefs in society of things like astrology,
deja vu etc. etc. Even when people are told things like it is more likely
for someone to be hit by a meteorite than win the lottery (the UK's
lottery), people still buy their lottery tickets and walk around without a
hard hat on.
What this means for arguments about probabilities, is that even when we
quantify probabilities, there is a very good chance that it will conflict
with our inbuilt sense of personal incredulity. This is seen most evidently
in religious people where they can't accept the universe could occur
spontaneously by chance, and assume it must have been started by someone or
something. So, the argument really should be is it impossible for something
to occur- what, in the physical laws we are still learning about, prevents
certain things from being possible.
Vincent Campbell
> ----------
> From: Robin Faichney
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 2:07 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Did language drive society or vice versa?
>
> On Thu, 11 May 2000, Wade T.Smith wrote:
> >Robin Faichney made this comment not too long ago --
> >
> >>Personally, I think all those who insist on the improbability of things
> being
> >>as they are, are pushing a disguised creationist, or at least vitalist,
> >>agenda.
> >
> >Ain't nothin' personal about it, really. As that great memeticist,
> >Sherlock Holmes, was recorded to remark, 'Once you've eliminated the
> >impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth', to which
>
> >I attempted to allude previously.
>
> I think Sherlock is better described as a great meme, than a great
> memeticist.
> But in any case, the improbability alluded to there is surely subjective.
>
> I guess I have to come clean here and admit I've always had a problem
> understanding the concept of objective (im)probability. To my mind, if we
> really knew all the factors involved, then whatever happened was the only
> thing
> that possibly could have happened. I realise this is somewhat Newtonian,
> but
> then that is still the default in the macro realm, is it not? And on this
> basis, im/probability is all about ignorance -- an event seems more or
> less
> likely GIVEN what we know, and what we don't know, about it and its
> precursors.
> So to say that anything that actually happened was improbable is, strictly
> speaking, meaningless. Or rather it tells us about our own ignorance, and
> nothing else. Which is why I think people who say such things must have
> some
> underlying agenda, and as to what that is: why say something is highly
> improbable, unless you're trying to imply there's something "special"
> about it?
> (And the Newtonian nature of this doesn't get you off the hook unless
> there is
> something explicitly non-Newtonian in your thinking.)
>
> --
> 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 : Fri May 12 2000 - 13:00:08 BST