Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA07830 (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 13:11:47 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB1AF@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 13:09:45 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
So you give us the annoying ditties do you?
Do you accept these as something natural selection can't explain, or just as
something you personally can't explain?
> ----------
> From: Chuck Palson
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 11:47 am
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Central questions of memetics
>
>
>
> 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 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 - 13:12:13 BST