Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA00446 (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 17:38:08 +0100 Message-ID: <391C332A.89D815A@netvision.net.il> Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 19:36:58 +0300 From: daniella <daniella@netvision.net.il> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr,de,es,it To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Central questions of memetics References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB183@inchna.stir.ac.uk> <391BE9D0.17D27167@mediaone.net> 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
could someone please tell how logic, reason, common sense, and intuition relate to
each other, if they do?
chuck,
is your argument that in a conservative society, change is not accepted.
in a changing society, reflection causes confusion causes changing ideas of a non
conservative nature?
daniella
Chuck Palson wrote:
> Vincent Campbell wrote:
>
> > hunter-gatherer environment? Are all our peculiar cultural habits a
> > feature, as Wilson would say I suppose, simply the result of genetic driving
> > which can't keep up with the pace of environmental change, and thus are
> > often 'mistakes' (like the examples you give), or is something else
> > involved? Does something having a use in our ancestral environment explain
> > its specific form (or forms) of existence in the contemporary environment?
> >
> > Vincent
> >
>
> Vincent - One aspect of this subject has been investigated. I think it's
> Cosmides (I can find out for you). He shows that even those who are
> professionally involved with the use of logic - like mathemeticians - have as
> much difficulty solving certain simple logical problems as the lay public - and
> have quite a high probability of getting it wrong. They say the reason for this
> lies in the fact that logic under ancestral conditions was tied to concrete
> objects and it was only used when absolutely necessary. Under modern conditions,
> we must abstract out the ability to be logical so we can use it across a broad
> array of situations. But since our brains weren't constructed to do this, using
> logic this way can be quite a frail tool.
>
> Which brings me to another aspect of this subject. Yes, from all I have been
> able to observe in two countries under conditions of extremely rapid change,
> such change does short circuit or make less functional the the processing power
> of our brain acquired during more stable times. I have confirmed the following
> in both Brazil (which has traversed the psycyhological distance that took us 2
> centuries in about 2-3 decades) and the United States: there is an loss of
> elementary common sense. That's not a joke. Here's some of my evidence.
>
> Scott Adams refers to an incident in his first book where he, too, talks about
> the same phenmoenon - of how people are more "stupid" - including himself,
> because of the rate of change. When his tape recorder stopped functioning, he
> brought it into the repair service -- who pointed out that he needed new
> batteries; Scott is not stupid, he just developed tunnel vision like the rest of
> us. He and I both believe that this kind of thing - which happens all the time -
> is caused by the necessity under situations of extreme cultural change to
> develop tunnel vision, focusing on only those things which are immediately and
> directly relevant to making a living. Other more peripheral things get short
> changed. What also happens is that we must assimulate things that often don't
> make much sense because we haven't had time to develop a deeper understanding.
> Computers are a good example. So even in those areas where we develop tunnel
> vision, our use of common sense is often crippled because it's not used a lot.
>
> I have spoken to Robert Kaplan about this loss of "common sense" (for lack of a
> better term at the moment) and he says that he has noticed it world wide. I
> could go into examples in Brazil which would knock your socks off, and they also
> notice it consciously.
>
> I am sure this is nothing new. There is evidence that this "memic
> disorientation" has happened throughout history during sudden changes. It
> surfaces specifically around the question of meaning. For example, Socrates'
> constant questioning in 300BC(?) was a manifestation of this. More recently, the
> question of meaning comes up explicitly during the industrial revolution as in
> the philosophy of Neitze and later, Satre or Camus. This is not characteristic
> behavior of people living under stable conditions. People who are living in
> traditional societies where they have children, remain mothers for their entire
> lives, etc. etc. do not ask heavy questions about the meaning of life.
>
> What is going on here? I think that the conscious mind - the part that is
> responsible for planning (where we talk to ourselves about various projects,
> including how we are going to talk to this or that person), which uses a lot of
> language (as when we talk to ourselves) can only process so much. Yet that is
> the part we need the most when things are changing fast becasue we can't rely on
> what we already know - the "intuitive" part of the brain which reaches as far
> down as the lymbic system.
>
> Here is an interesting hypothesis based on what I have said: the most important
> reason that people are so attracted to memetics is precisely because of the
> disorientation caused by our current rate of rapid change. The meaning of many
> "memes," if you will, are in the process of transition, and so the depth of
> their meanings (the network of associations built up in the brain) is rather
> shallow. The feeling that memes can have little or no meaning or practical value
> comes from this whole process of rapid change. That is, the meanings of anything
> don't have a chance establish a rich network of associations, so there is a
> "thinness" if you will, to our culture. I have noticed this thinness when
> learning a new language. The words lack enough depth to stick very well, and I
> make some really stupid errors in reasoning. So in one sense, memetics is a
> historical product of these times. Memeticists take as their subject a real
> phenomenon, although they exaggerate it as when they treat memes as having a
> life of their own. That's why they all - probably without exception - tend to be
> anti technology. They don't recognize, however, the historical specificity of
> their observations so they incorrectly generalize their intuitions.
>
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From: Bill Spight
> > > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 12:18 am
> > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > Subject: Re: Central questions of memetics
> > >
> > > Dear Vincent,
> > >
> > > > At a small
> > > > social group level, you've got bond-forming and maintaining, but how
> > > many of
> > > > his fans does Michael Jordan know (and vice versa)? And I'm sure we're
> > > > familiar with the concept of widows & orphans in sport, the families of
> > > > fanatical sports followers who definitely suffer as a result, we're
> > > talking
> > > > about behaviours which are quite widespread around the world, relating
> > > to a
> > > > myriad of different sports, that seemd to defy being satisfactorily
> > > > explained by genetic advantage
> > >
> > > Isn't sports fanaticism atavistic? I. e., it is not very fit in a
> > > modern civilized environment, but it probably was in the smaller
> > > social groups in which humans have lived for most of our
> > > existence (and it expressed itself differently too, I expect).
> > > Much the same can be said for the sweet tooth, which is more
> > > fitted for an environment where you pick fruit from trees, rather
> > > than one with donut shops.
> > >
> > > And thanks for the joke. ;-)
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > > ===============================================================
> > > 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 : Fri May 12 2000 - 17:38:27 BST