Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA08849 (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 15:25:19 +0100 Message-ID: <3923B7A1.922671A7@mediaone.net> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 10:28:01 +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: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB1AF@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:
> 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?
At this point the two are the same. It is interesting, though that it is the
only example anyone has offered in more than a week. If everyone here is right
that useless memes are at least common, one would have expected a flood of
suggestions.
BUT, as I think about it now, I think it is significant that in this one example
that has been offered, people don't say "Oh, a useless meme" and remain neutral
about it. They hope they can stop thinking about it because it is annoying. In
other words, it seems to me if useless memes were so common, we would know
immediately because they are annoying, yet no one has offered one.
But now, I am thinking of another possibility. Most of the memes that people
suggest are useless (skateboards, crazes, etc) are in fact useless *to them*.
They must somehow live with them because they live in a complex society. So what
does that prove about memes? It proves that some people don't accept certain
memes because they are useless.
>
>
> > ----------
> > 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 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 - 15:25:53 BST