RE: Central questions of memetics

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Mon May 22 2000 - 11:52:07 BST

  • Next message: chuck: "Re: Central questions of memetics"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA22925 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 22 May 2000 11:54:00 +0100
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB1C6@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: Mon, 22 May 2000 11:52:07 +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
    

    You did, but you're looking at this problem from such a narrow perspective,
    you're not seeing the bigger picture.

    I really do not understand how you cannot see media processes as distinct
    from the processes of natural selection (distinct not independent of).

    Here are some basic questions to show what I mean-

    When you go to the cinema, do you talk to the characters on screen? Why
    not?

    When you watch images of a war or a famine on television, do you think it
    has the same effect on you as if you were directly there? Why?

    When you're watching a new presenter looking 'out of' the television 'at
    you', what do you think he or she is thinking? Who are they talking to?
    Indeed, how do you talk to people you can't see or hear?

    According to the Guiness book of World Records (sorry world's records for
    Americans) the most watched television programme in the world is Baywatch,
    with some 1 billion viewers. Baywatch, of course, a very particular image
    of women (and men for that matter), which is seen in disparate cultures
    around the world- what impact does this have? Is it the same culturally as
    the ecological impact of the arrival of dogs and cats in Australasia?

    What is the effect of information communicated across thousands of miles and
    millions of people simultaneously?

    When you look at a painting like the Mona Lisa do you get the message da
    Vinci was sending out? Or, even better perhaps, when you look at a Picasso,
    or a Jackson Pollock?

            Now, I'm not saying that our physiological and psychological
    responses to such things aren't taking place in the brain and therefore
    aren't anything to do with natural selection.

    What I'm saying is that we did not evolve in an environment with such media
    (or most other technology for that matter), and we have to ask questions
    about how these developments may in themselves create environmental
    pressures on the process of natural selection. Once, you start to think
    about just how rapid technological and cultural change can be, in relation
    to genetic change, you also have to think about the impact of such forces on
    the behaviour of humans at a given point in time. What is evident from
    history- as much as you'd like to ignore or dismiss it- is that the
    combination of technology and culture has created in the past, and
    currently, behaviour not just from individuals, but entire groups that
    conflict with genetically beneficial behaviours. Not only that, but their
    behaviours have not died out with those people, because the technologies and
    cultures that produced those behaviours are maintained and passed on in ways
    over than via the genes, e.g. through their writings, their architecture,
    their art etc. etc.

    I really think you can't see the trees for the wood here (and, yes I do mean
    it that way round).

    > ----------
    > From: Chuck Palson
    > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 12:26 pm
    > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Subject: Re: Central questions of memetics
    >
    >
    >
    > Vincent Campbell wrote:
    >
    > > 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.
    > >
    >
    > I think I've got a way to answer, but it might take some going back and
    > forth
    > for a while. The "how" is obvious, by the visual channels. That means the
    > brain
    > has to use a far more limited range of senses than ever before to
    > understand.
    > And worse, it's probably far more limiting than we can imagine.
    >
    > Here's an interesting fact to illustrate the problem. The US Navy trains
    > recruits mostly only highly computerized ships with the exception of one
    > battleship that has relatively fewer computers. The rest of the navy
    > fights for
    > the recruits in the latter -- because they are ultimately better at
    > computers!
    > The reason is probably the following: those that learn about the ships
    > functions
    > mainly through computers only have two senses, sight and (sometimes)
    > sound, to
    > learn with. The ones from the poorly equipped ship have learned about the
    > ship
    > with a lot of actual use - touch and feel. The more senses you can rally
    > to
    > learning a task, the better you will learn it. In other words, learning
    > through
    > computers is what I might call thin - it doesn't create as many
    > associations in
    > the brain.
    >
    > Now, back to your question. That is in a nutshell the problem of modern
    > society.
    > We have to learn much more from fewer senses. Those who are genetically
    > favored
    > to do this better may be selected for. In other words, it's not "outside"
    > evolution, it's evolution in the making. To answer your question, it is
    > *not* a
    > "process [that] is different in any kind of way from natural
    > selection."
    >
    > So where does that leave media studies? With a very difficult problem that
    > no
    > simple tool is going to help you solve. The fact is, we are not very well
    > equipped to absorb facts without having practical experience with those
    > facts. I
    > think it was Marx who said that all knowledge is sensual, by which he
    > meant not
    > abstract. This fact of life imposes all sorts of limitations on modern
    > society.
    > There's simply no magic bullet on this one, not even treating information
    > as if
    > they were genes - that only gives you one more layer of abstraction to
    > confuse
    > the issue.
    >
    > Did I read you right this time?
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 : Mon May 22 2000 - 11:54:31 BST