Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA07273 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 18 May 2000 11:20:18 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB1A8@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Central questions of memetics Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:18:17 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Thanks for the response, you don't answer my question about the process of
cultural change.
See my points elsewhere on this list regarding suicide cults as 'failures'.
Sorry, more questions for you-
You say acts require beliefs. How do animals 'act' when, as far as we know,
they don't have beliefs? I suppose what I'm aksing is what do you mean by
'act'?
You use the term 'economic consequences', but what do you mean by this?
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Chuck Palson
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 2:27 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Central questions of memetics
>
>
>
> Vincent Campbell wrote:
>
> > Chuck, again I think you've misunderstood several of my points here.
> >
> > Take my question-
> >
> > > > What makes cultural change so
> > > > much faster than biological change?
> > >
> > And your answer-
> >
> > >>That's also easy. Change can happen in a few hours, bioligical
> > change - each
> > > tiny bit of it - happens a generation at a time.
> > >
> > The question was not 'how much quicker is cultural change than
> biological
> > change?', but what is the process by which it occurs? You don't answer
> that
> > question in your response.
> >
> > In addition, there are many aspects of human culture, that have been
> > discussed on this list from jingles to sayings etc. etc., that aren't to
> do
> > with technology, which you seem fixated on.
>
> I have written a lot about this, and it is still being debated here. But I
> suggest you go back to my previous stuff to get a better idea of what I am
> talking about. But as a quick example, I say that ALL belief systems have
> economic consequences because beliefs - be it religious or secular or
> whatever -
> are needed to act, and different belief systems direct users to act in
> more or
> less efficient ways. For example, we invented the protestant ethic back a
> few
> centuries ago because it was more appropriate to behavior in an emerging
> capitalist system.
>
> > Speaking personally, I don't
> > see how using memetics to offer an explanation of why things like
> religions,
> > and astrology, spread can be seen as anti-technology in any way.
>
> Nothing inherent in the idea. It's when people start talking about memes
> like
> fax machines and computer operating systems as "useless" and lots of other
> stuff
> llike that that I came to that conclusion.
>
>
> > In fact it
> > is these systems that are anti-technology, and have been demonstrably so
> in
> > the past (e.g. the Vatican's response to Galileo). Indeed, some
> religious
> > communities actively avoid technology, such as the Amish.
>
> The don't avoid technology - they have a lot more than they had in the
> 1600s.
> They choose technology that will not interfere with their sense of
> community.
> For example, motorized tractors were banned because people started using
> them to
> go into town which in turn increased the frequency of visits to town and
> had a
> negative effect on community cohesion. It turns out that all their
> technology
> choices are guided by that kind of principle.
>
> > Your response to why crazes occur returns once again to the social
> utility
> > problem we've discussed before. And, as Richard pointed out, their are
> > extreme examples of mass suicides in cults that can only be described as
> > 'useful' in a relativistic manner.
>
> As I have said a few times, there are experiments that fail. Suicide is a
> failure because it would lead to the extinction of the species.
>
> > In fact, something like the Jones Town
> > massacre offer a good example for the Wilson-ites, in trying to explain
> why
> > people killed not only others and themselves, but their own children.
> How
> > was any of that 'useful' behaviour?
>
> It wasn't except in a fantastical sense. It's at least interesting, even
> if
> wrong, that Jones probably rationalized the behavior by thinking it would
> get
> them to heaven faster. So the brain will often say that something is
> useful and
> do it for that reason - it just happens to be wrong some of the time.
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Thu May 18 2000 - 11:20:52 BST