Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAB00354 (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 17:26:16 +0100 Message-ID: <391BEB01.D294775C@mediaone.net> Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 12:29:05 +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: Fwd: Did language drive society or vice versa? References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB184@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:
> 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
>
Vincent - there has been a lot of work done on this from exactly the perspective
you are talking about. However, what is interesting is that we DO have an inborn
ability to understand probabilities and act on them. But it all depends on how
they are stated. It's the same problem as understanding logical constructs that
I just wrote about in another posting. The brain has to get the information in a
way that approximates how it got it under ancestral conditions. Pinker in How
the Mind Works goes over this material.
>
> > ----------
> > 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 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 - 17:26:35 BST