Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA04262 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 17 May 2000 16:44:49 +0100 Message-ID: <392278B0.E3EC00D7@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:47:12 +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: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB19F@inchna.stir.ac.uk> <00051620293000.00852@faichney> 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
Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2000, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> >Excellent example of a purely cultural function of an object, and this then
> >begs the questions I'm interested in - where did cultures come from, why do
> >we have them and other animals don't, and how do cultures
> >persist/develop/change?
>
> Despite the which-came-first question, in this case with regard to memes and
> expanded brains, I'm convinced that culture is inevitable where sociability
> meets sufficient intelligence. To put this another way, memes require (a)
> means of transmission between individuals, and specifically the tendency for
> them to copy each other's behaviour, and (b) "spare" information processing
> capacity, facilitating behaviour that's not too strictly tied to immediate
> survival. Because despite Chuck's insistence on usefulness, I think it's
> very clear that the overwhelming mass of culture is anything but that -- tied
> to immediate survival, I mean.
See what you think of the notion of survival after reading my recent post on the
subject.
> Entertainment value seems much more
> significant than actual practical usefulness, and if you widen "useful" to
> include "entertaining", then I think it ("useful") loses its usefulness (and
> it's not terribly entertaining either).
A lot of people say almost as a matter of faith that Darwin's theory is
meaningless because it can be applied to everything. They even claim that it is
tautological because the actual survival is supposed to be the explanatory
factor. And indeed, you might be suspicious of a theory that explains everything.
Trouble is, it does -- so far -- because there are ways to falsify the theory. If
someone could find an organism that just popped out of nowhere or a change that
did not benefit the replicator, the theory is disproven.
So you provide me with a example of a meme (besides the annoying ditty that keeps
repeating itself in your head) that is not useful in either direct practical
terms or indirectly through establishment of alliances and status (which in turn
lead to access to material resources), and you have falisfied my theory. Your
frustration that I do find usefulness where you find only triviality is a comment
on the differences we have in method and theory.
===============================================================
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 : Wed May 17 2000 - 16:45:16 BST