Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA00787 (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 18:45:08 +0100 Message-ID: <391BFD7B.580F5E0E@mediaone.net> Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 13:47:56 +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: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB183@inchna.stir.ac.uk> <391BE9D0.17D27167@mediaone.net> <391C332A.89D815A@netvision.net.il> 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
daniella wrote:
> could someone please tell how logic, reason, common sense, and intuition relate to
> each other, if they do?
>
I don't know if there is an official set of definitions, but here's mine: Logic is the
entirely abstracted processes - no content. Reason is the folk version of logic -
which sometimes violates the abstract rules; BUT, it is often synonymous with logic.
Common sense is just what everyone knows to be true - or think they do - regardless of
logic or not. And intuition is, according to those who specialize in its dynamics,
simply the accumulation of knowledge in the unconscious. For the latter, see Gary
Klein's work on how experts make decisions. They often claim they have ESP, but it
turns out to be accumulated experience.
>
> chuck,
> is your argument that in a conservative society, change is not accepted.
Not quite. No significant change ever happens with a felt need that is in itself a
reaction to changes in the environment. The latter always boil down to changes in the
economy (defined as the distribution of goods and services in their totality) and
services; cash may or may not be involved. The majority of economic exchanges even in
a cash economy are probably not related directly to cash.
>
> in a changing society, reflection causes confusion causes changing ideas of a non
> conservative nature?
Yes. Causes more than confusion, though. Inability to get things done.
>
> 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 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 - 18:45:34 BST