Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA14175 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 19 May 2000 13:31:11 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB1BF@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: Fri, 19 May 2000 13:28:48 +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
The 'er' was because you changed my question about what is an 'act', into
what is a 'belief', even though I thought I'd put it quite clearly.
Why would you need to 'believe' in the physical properties in order to catch
the ball? I don't want o be facetious, but does gravity only work if you
believe in it? Do frogs need to believe in the things you mention in order
to catch flies?
I think Wade's responses were better at shooting down my example.
> ----------
> From: Chuck Palson
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 12:48 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Central questions of memetics
>
>
>
> Vincent Campbell wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> You would need to believe some intuitive physics - like gravity, inertia,
> and
> their effect on the trajectory. I would imagine that some aspects of this
> might
> be learned on the base of inborn intuitive physics. I don't know if there
> is any
> reseach on this. But I do know that some intuitive physics is inborn.
>
> I am puzzled by your "Er". I hope I am answering your question.
>
> >
> >
> > 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 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 : Fri May 19 2000 - 13:31:50 BST