Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA12735 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:50:23 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017458A1@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Jabbering ! Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:48:17 +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
Fair enough, I think that's pretty clear.
I'll have to think about that, and get back to you. It still doesn't seem
right to me, as I still think there are quantitative and qualitative
differences between human culture and other organisms' communicative
behaviours, distinct enough to not warrant calling other organisms
behaviours cultural.
Perhaps even better would be to say OK let's assume organisms have cultures
(or at least those that don't live solitary lives- mind you is true that
only one tapeworm can inhabit a host at a time?). What then, if anything
distinguishes human culture from that of other organisms?
It seems to me to be essential for there to be some distinguishing features
otherwise memetics doesn't offer anything that sociobiology couldn't answer.
One key quantitative distinction, I suppose, would be the multiplicity of
means through which humans can and do communicate. Other organisms have
relatively few, and relatively limited means of communication in comparison.
One key qualitative difference is that humans have developed the means of
communicating over time and space distances that other organisms do not.
Other animals can communicate over great distances, although I'm not aware
of any other animal that can communicate across continents the way humans
can (I've heard that story about whale song travelling hundreds of miles- or
it did before there were lots of ship engines around, is that true- I ask
out of interest, not disbelief). But the aspect of communication over time
seems even more significant and distinct to me, as it allows
ideas/information to survive their creators (both individuals and cultures).
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Bruce Jones
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Friday, June 2, 2000 2:05 pm
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: Jabbering !
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vincent Campbell [SMTP:v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk]
> > Subject: RE: Jabbering !
> >
> >
> > I on the other hand really don't like this use of the word culture for
> > other
> > animals especially caterpillars.
> >
> > If memetics is a theory of cultural evolution then some agreement has to
> > be
> > reached about what a culture actually is. It seems to me, from many of
> > the
> > postings on this, that the term is used quite differently in different
> > disciplines.
> >
> > I'd quite like someone to clarify for me how they use the term culture
> to
> > describe behaviours of caterpillars or apes or whatever.
> >
> [BJ] I will try with my definition of a culture:
>
> Culture (Noun, Adjective)
> [BJ]
> Noun: Any group of entities sharing a common environment, common
> resources, or common interests for the mutual benefit of the group or
> individual entities. Communication is a function of their individual and
> group survival needs. Simple as "danger" and as complex as "E=mc2".
>
> The level at which communication is carried out may have a
> micro-cellular limit. Amoebae and trees "communicate" through chemical
> alteration of their environment. SO far no communication of this type is
> known below the amoebae that I have read or heard about.
>
> Adjective: Any reference to a group of entities sharing a
> commonality, group sharing of resources, and some form of communicative
> action.
>
> These "cultures" can not be associated with entities that function
> alone and reproduce asexually. A tape worm is not a culture. It does not
> share a common (local) environment with other tape worms, it does not
> cooperate with other tape worms, it does not communicate with other tape
> worms, and it reproduces asexually. An ant does each of these and can
> therefore be considered a culture.
>
> There, however, must be some level at which ... even though an
> entity meets all requirements ... the discussion of culture becomes a null
> argument. Hierarchy within a culture for division of labor makes for a
> social entity ... difference.
>
> Bruce Jones
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 Jun 02 2000 - 14:51:04 BST