Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA09916 (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 17:21:39 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB1B7@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Why are human brains bigger? Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 17:19:38 +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
I realise that comment may have sounded like the 'special' human lobby, but
it is isn't what I really meant.
What I meant was that undoubtedly humans are animals and large sections of
our behaviour is determined by underlying requirements of the genes subject
to environmental pressures. But in our evolution we have developed
capacities for doing distinct things- eagles fly, chameleons change colour-
humans have language, art, and writing (and other things too).
So, what I was saying was that culture, if defined in these ways, is unique
to humans. Elephants don't have 'graveyards', and chimps don't make art
(expect in the lab).
I don't think culture exists in isolation from, or opposition to, natural
selection, only that it exists in addition to natural selection, producing
new effects on behaviour that may conflict, or at least problematize,
behaviour produced by natural selection.
I've said elsewhere on this list what I think the next set of questions then
are, but I'd acknowledge that if you didn't see this distinction then those
questions don't follow, and natural selection answers all the questions.
But it seems self evident to me that the distinction is valid, and so are
the questions that arise from it. [but I doubt you'll be convinced :-)]
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Chuck Palson
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 9:48 am
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Why are human brains bigger?
>
>
>
> Vincent Campbell wrote:
>
> > I think arguing that animals have cultures is dangerously like
> > anthropomorphism.
>
> I think that arguing that animals don't have cultures is dangerously like
> anthropomorphism. The more we study animals, the more we see the
> similarities.
> There are differences between humans and other species, but they get
> really hard
> to pin down.
>
> > As to the group selection thing, well I'm going from the various
> different
> > statements made to this effect by the likes of Dawkins, and Gould et al.
> >
>
> I would be surprised to find Gould saying this. If you happen to run into
> any
> references on this, please pass them along.
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 - 17:22:06 BST