Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA20306 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 3 Jun 2000 19:58:51 +0100 Message-Id: <200006031856.OAA17244@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 14:00:52 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Jabbering ! In-reply-to: <39390229.898C8161@mediaone.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Date sent: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 14:03:37 +0100
From: Chuck <cpalson@mediaone.net>
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Jabbering !
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
>
> "Joe E. Dees" wrote:
>
> > From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk>
> > Organization: Reborn Technology
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: RE: Jabbering !
> > Date sent: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 19:46:12 +0100
> > Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >
> > > On Fri, 02 Jun 2000, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> > > >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.
> > >
> > > A definition of culture that fits perfectly with memetics, though it
> > > might not satisfy your "cultural intuitions" (intuitions about culture,
> > > derived from culture) is very simple: imitation of behaviour. To fill
> > > that out a little: species that are both social, and sufficiently
> > > intelligent, can learn cooperatively -- what one individual learns
> > > directly from experience can be passed on to others so that they get
> > > the benefit without having to go through the experience. This "body
> > > of knowledge" constitutes the culture, and this is obviously more
> > > efficient than being restricted to individual learning, in which case
> > > the wheel is reinvented many, many times.
> > >
> > > Of course, human culture has a very substantial content that was not
> > > exactly learned -- the products of the imagination, for instance -- and
> > > there are plenty other differences from the culture of any other species
> > > too. But on this definition, these are all cultures, and I don't see any
> > > particular problem with this definition. On the contrary, it has
> > > the advantage of being quite simple and clear. And there are plenty
> > > of differences between us and other species, so there's no need to
> > > add culture to the list.
> > >
> > But those differences constitute culture. When a mother lion
> > teaches her cub to stalk prey, she is passing down the same
> > wheel passed down for countless millennia. I cannot consider this
> > cultural transmission, but rather species-specific childrearing.
> > Thousands of different human languages where in each case the
> > meaning-being relations between words and referents are arbitrary
> > and by mutual convention rather than being either genetically or
> > environmentally mandated, a great number of complex and ever-
> > changing technologies, and both scientific theories to explain how
> > they - and we - work, and pure abstractions applicable to any
> > referent, such as mathematics and logic; NOW we're talking
> > culture(s)!
>
> Joe - I wonder if we can really say there is a hard and fast distinction. Perhaps
> it would be better to have an instinctual/learned continuum. Or perhaps culture
> should only be defined as those aspects of behavior that are ammenable to free
> variation. For example, given an identical environment and population density,
> two isolated cultures can be counted on to be remarkably similar because the
> human brain calculates pretty well the necessary behavior for inhabiting a
> particular environment. So in a sense, a good deal of the behaviors that are in
> fact learned are preordained by the human brain that will do the identical
> calculations in identical environments. (hope that isn't too abstract - I can
> give examples if needed)
>
Well, human languages are not universal, but you've noted that.
Sometimes the type of task required is common in all tokens of an
environmental type inhabited, but the method is not. Seaside
cultures fish, but some fish with bait and hook, some with net,
some with fishtrap, some with spear, some with bow and arrow, etc.
>
> BUT, there is free variation on behaviors that have equally viable optional
> strategies. Certain elements of a system of writing, for example, can be quite
> variable without making a practical difference.
>
> Of course the boundaries and definitions would be dynamic as we learna more about
> how the brain functions.
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Sat Jun 03 2000 - 19:59:38 BST