Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA09749 (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 17:03:04 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB1B5@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 17:01:07 +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
Er, well thanks for clarifying your use of economics, but as to the other
point I understand perfectly what a belief is, I want to know what you
define as an act.
If I threw a ball at you and you caught it, what would you need to believe
in to attempt to catch it?
If you mean act in a more detailed sense then explain. Otherwise, see
Lawrence's point about flinching.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Chuck Palson
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 9:33 am
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Central questions of memetics
>
>
>
> 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 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 - 17:03:33 BST