Re: Central questions of memetics

From: Chuck Palson (cpalson@mediaone.net)
Date: Thu May 18 2000 - 09:33:38 BST

  • Next message: Chuck Palson: "Re: Technology vs. culture"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA08293 (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 14:30:58 +0100
    Message-ID: <3923AAE1.E1C2FFAA@mediaone.net>
    Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 09:33:38 +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: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB1A8@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    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
    

    Vincent Campbell wrote:

    > 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'?

    I would think you are asking what do I mean by belief because that's the
    important question. What is human belief? Pinker makes the good point that most
    of our mental processes don't have a linguistic expression; it's only when it
    gets into immediate memory - what we often call consciousness - that most of can
    access beliefs in linguistic form. I can say to myself, "I believe that God
    might punish me today if I don't go to church" or "My boss will fire me if I am
    late one more time." And we can write in books about our beliefs for everyone to
    see. But does that mean that beliefs need language and humans are the only ones
    who can have beliefs? Pinker says we have to put this "mentalese," as he calls
    it, into words to discuss the processes publically, but that is only a
    convention.

    So, what ARE beliefs? Aren't they really just a strong disposition to act under
    certain circumstances? The difference with humans is perhaps only that we can
    plan into the future more, so we use language to communicate complex planning to
    others who may have to know our plans.

    There are experiments that show quite definitively that at the moment they feel
    they have made a conscious choice based on their beliefs, brain senseing
    technology indicates that the decision has been already been made up to 1 second
    previously -- a long time in terms of how fast nerve impulses travel -- in the
    lymbic system. I would have to say that animals must have some kind of belief
    structure; it's just basic to any life that must rely on complex learning --
    which many animals must have.

    >
    >
    > You use the term 'economic consequences', but what do you mean by this?
    >

    First "economic." It should be a term that emerges from evolutionary theory, not
    modern economic theory. The economy of a group is by this way of thinking is all
    the exchanges of goods and services. That includes all the favors, the
    "insurance" we give each other in the form of "you do this for very big thing
    for me, and I will be there for any catastrophe for you, even if it's more than
    the approximate value it now has for me," the barter, etc. etc. Much of the
    economy of a group is never registered in the official paper economy if the
    group has such. That is the only evolutionary definition of economy that makes
    sense.

    So, can you see from this how anything you do will have economic consequences?
    Your beliefs will have direct economic consequences because it will determine
    how you act in various economic transactions.

    I understand that this definition is difficult because it's not as neat as any
    traditional definition. But the problem with the traditional definitions is that
    if you can't put an immediate number on it, it simply doesn't exist. With my
    evolutionary definition (which, by the way, some anthropologists thought of and
    worked with a bit many years ago) you don't have the luxury of leaving any of
    the economy out for narrow purposes. Instead, you have to figure out some
    creative ways to study it that don't necessarily involve precise numbers of all
    transactions.

    >
    > Vincent

    ===============================================================
    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 - 14:31:25 BST