Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA15745 (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 16:57:01 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB1C5@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 16:54:58 +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
'It's all the same, isn't it? As long as the adopter knows 1) it
works, 2) other
> people are already using it, 3) it's a threat. Why would the media mode
> make a
> difference?'
>
This comment exasperates me. If you can't see why, I don't know how else to
explain it to you. Help anyone?!
> > Essentially this is the basic set of questions of media studies- how
> does
> > mediated communication (at its most fundamental level this includes
> > language) differ, it at all, from direct interpersonal communication-
> and
> > this, again, is in terms of process.
>
'Insofar as media alters what has to be perceived because you can't
directly
> experience it. We've discussed stuff like this before, and it's not easy
> because
> of the difficulty proving anything. But again, it seems to me that
> neuroscience
> will help in the long run. If you can get people's brains to look the same
> when
> they see a new gadget on TV as when they try it directly, you've got some
> effective media. That's just a rough example.'
>
Yes, so how do you do that- what is the process that makes some TV content
trigger the same kind of response that you'd get in direct experience? And,
what is the other kind of experience that it generates if it doesn't, which
you imply here (and indeed is implicit in my comment)?
> >
> >
> > As to the point about technological capacity which varies in people, and
> > clearly has a genetic basis, this is absolutely right, but it doesn't
> change
> > the point that technology itself isn't transmitted via the genes, does
> it?
> >
>
> It's transmitted because people have the capacity to understand the new
> technology and the material resources to adopt it. That capacity comes
> ultimately from genetic traits. I wouldn't take genes too literally. As
> Pinker
> says, we don't have children because we want to get our genes into the
> next
> generation; we do it because we can't not do it [celibacy?]. That's almost
> a proverb, and I am still pondering the meaning of it, but it helps to not
> take genes too
> literally -- which is one of the problems with memics.
>
>
I'm not asking why it's transmitted, I'm asking how it's transmitted, and
whether or not that process is different in any kind of way from natural
selection.
> >
> > Vincent
> > > ----------
> > > From: Chuck Palson
> > > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 10:06 am
> > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > Subject: Re: Central questions of memetics
> > >
> > > You ask some very interesting questions. Perhaps they strike me even
> more
> > > because I just finished giving some lectures on sociobiology applied
> to
> > > history
> > > to some very well read lay people - which are often the best kind for
> > > stimulating new ideas. Let's see what I can come up with:
> > >
> > > Vincent Campbell wrote:
> > >
> > > > I see your argument here, and as a social scientist it may indeed by
> a
> > > > professional reservation I have over going the whole hog regarding
> > > natural
> > > > selection's influence on human behaviour, because it might put me
> out of
> > > a
> > > > job! :-)
> > >
> > > I think this is a serious issue - despite your ":-)"; it lies at the
> core
> > > of
> > > many of these debates. I started out in the social sciences. I don't
> have
> > > a
> > > professional position in them now, so I suspect I don't feel as
> threatened
> > > by a
> > > change like this. On the other hand, now that I use a SB perspective
> in
> > > investigating behavior, I feel that there is no fundamental
> contradiction.
> > > SB as
> > > a field hasn't quite come to the point where enough people understand
> > > this,
> > > although Pinker comes very close in his How the Mind Works.
> > >
> > > > Let's forget culture for a moment, and talk about technology. You
> have
> > > said
> > > > on this list explicitly that technological change drives cultural
> > > change.
> > > > Let's accept that for a moment. Let's accept also that technology
> > > spreads
> > > > because it has utility, I certainly have no problem with this. My
> > > question
> > > > is thus how does technology spread? It quite clearly does not
> spread
> > > > genetically. The process of technological evolution may be
> analogous to
> > > > natural selection but it is not the same as it because it is not
> > > conducted
> > > > through genes.
> > >
> > > You are bringing up a lot of issues here and it's hard to know where
> to
> > > begin.
> > > Let's see ....
> > > Yes, I have said that technology change drives cultural change because
> in
> > > the
> > > time spans I am talking about, that is the direction. On the other
> hand, I
> > > should point out that in the long run - many thousands of years -
> there
> > > has been
> > > and probably still is a dialectical relationship between the two. We
> know
> > > that
> > > individuals are better or worse at inventing and using new technology
> and
> > > this
> > > is due to some degree on their inborn talents at these things. (There
> are
> > > others
> > > who have better social skills, by the way.) That would make the line
> > > between
> > > culture and biology pretty fuzzy. It's an issue I have avoided so far
> in
> > > these
> > > discussions on this site, but I think we have to deal with it. The
> more we
> > > know
> > > about the brain, the more it seems like this distinction will get
> fuzzier
> > > and
> > > fuzzier.
> > >
> > > 2. Underneath all the talk about culture being different is the age
> old
> > > mind
> > > body issue. In my view, the question of "How does 'it' spread?" is
> > > entirely
> > > generated by this issue; the nature of 'it' seems mysterious because
> it is
> > > conceived of as separate from the body. By developing ways over the
> last
> > > twenty
> > > years to peer into the brain, we may be on the threshold of a more
> > > effective
> > > understanding of ourselves by eliminating the distinction. The point
> is,
> > > 'it' is
> > > a material reality interacting with a material reality.
> > >
> > > With that in mind, tell me what's wrong with this explanation: a
> physical
> > > individual invents a new widget to do wizzing more efficiently. Other
> > > physicial
> > > individuals notice the widget and compute the following: if I don't
> get
> > > the
> > > widget, that individual will have power over me. Soon everyone has one
> and
> > > the
> > > playing field is again roughly equalized (might take a few centuries).
> > >
> > > Underlying this is a human brain that evolved under selective
> pressures as
> > > a
> > > particular kind of problem solver that develops a wide range of
> solutions
> > > to the
> > > problems of physical existence; that is why our species now occupies
> more
> > > econiches than any other mammal. The very competitive pressures that
> has
> > > formed
> > > the brain are in fact responsible for the widespread adoption of the
> > > widget.
> > >
> > > But, the argument goes, ideas have no material reality; you can't
> touch
> > > them,
> > > you can't see them. Look at the "isness" of your perceptions. I can't
> > > agree.
> > > Ideas *do* have material reality that we are just beginning to quite
> > > literally
> > > be able to see. And all you need to connect those happenings in the
> brain
> > > and
> > > the outside world is a series of thingamabobs that a) sense events
> outside
> > > themselves and b) physically react to events in the outside world
> and/or
> > > inside
> > > the brain; something we call a nerve will do. In other words, a kind
> of
> > > computer, although far more complex and with a number of mechanical
> > > principles.
> > > Yet conditions a and b are always present. This is Pinker's idea, and
> I
> > > read it
> > > over a few times before I gave my lectures. It makes so much sense to
> me
> > > that I
> > > have trouble seeing why people can't see it, so maybe I am missing
> > > something
> > > here.
> > >
> > > I should note that this is certainly not Skinnerism. The notion of a
> black
> > > box
> > > that does one thing very well ("associations") is a form of black
> magic
> > > because
> > > the notion of association covers up all kinds of process that must be
> > > going on.
> > > Skinner probably would have been mystified, delighted, and threatened
> all
> > > at
> > > once by today's discoveries.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that there is an enormous psychological resistance to
> this
> > > notion
> > > due to one very important human issue: immortality. I am quite serious
> > > about
> > > this. As I, a long time atheist, grows old, I see how convenient is
> the
> > > notion
> > > of immortality. If, as I grow frail, I can convince others that they
> will
> > > still
> > > have to deal with me after my death, that we will meet up again
> somewhere,
> > > it
> > > maintains my authority with those younger than myself even though my
> time
> > > is
> > > coming and I can't contribute as much. Of course I can't do that
> because
> > > it's
> > > just not in me. But you might have noticed that the stronger the
> ancestor
> > > worship in a society, the more firm is the authority structure.
> > >
> > > [I always make it a habit to examine the social utility of any idea
> > > because it
> > > gives me all kinds of insights into how to present the idea, so I hope
> you
> > > don't
> > > find the above just a digression.]
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now if processes like technological or cultural evolution are not
> > > conducted
> > > > via natural selection
> > >
> > > It is *part* of natural selection, and my hunch is that humans are
> only
> > > the most
> > > impressive example. What do we make of species of birds that have to
> learn
> > > how
> > > to sing, for example.
> > >
> > > > even if you use the same terminology for technological or cultural
> > > > evolution, such as utility, the meaning of utility in these
> different
> > > > systems may be different from what it means in terms of the genes.
> > > Second,
> > > > although there is much debate about it, technological change may
> have
> > > > already had significant impacts on selection pressures within
> humans,
> > >
> > > I don't think there is any debate about the principle among those in
> the
> > > field;
> > > they only disagree on the details - principally how fast it takes
> place
> > > and is
> > > it happening now.
> > >
> > > > As a media scholar it is the process rather than the underlying
> origins
> > > or
> > > > determining basis of that process that interests me. I'm not
> interested
> > > > necessarily in why people believe religion 'a', but the process by
> which
> > > > religion 'a' spread. It may spread because it's useful to its
> > > believers,
> > > > but so what? What's interesting to me is how religion 'a' spreads,
> > > >
> > >
> > > I pay as close attention to findings in the neurosciences as time
> permits
> > > because the brain is where the all action is. When an experiment
> > > demonstrates
> > > that something actually takes place outside of consciousness when I
> had
> > > thought
> > > all these years that it was entirely conscious, it challenges my world
> > > view a
> > > little, it opens me up to new ways of exploring behavior even though
> we
> > > don't
> > > know nearly enough about the meaning of the experimental results. It
> seems
> > > to me
> > > that you might find that a useful approach.
> > >
> > > But in all seriousness, I'd like to see how you analyze my
> widget/wizzer
> > > example.
> > >
> > > Also, at some point I might give you a chapter I have written as part
> of a
> > > proposed book on how and why the romantic period developed in the
> United
> > > States.
> > > It is partly based on the sociobiological finding that it is hard to
> > > entirely
> > > fake emotions, emotional expressions are universal, and emotional
> displays
> > > make
> > > us more transparent to others. It has to do with establishing new ways
> of
> > > developing trust among relative strangers in a historical period when
> > > large
> > > scale migrations made it impossible to know others through their
> > > established
> > > reputation. It's a good example of how you aren't as professionally
> > > threatened
> > > as you think you might be by sociobiology.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ===============================================================
> > > 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 - 16:57:33 BST