Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA21110 (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 22:51:17 +0100 Message-ID: <39393704.EF9649EA@mediaone.net> Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 17:49:08 +0100 From: Chuck <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Cui bono, Chuck? References: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJIEJGEOAA.richard@brodietech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Richard Brodie wrote:
> Responding to Chuck:
>
> [RB]
> > 1. People do not always choose memes that are useful, but instead choose
> > memes that appear to them to have some utility. (Do you agree that this
> > might be something as simple as "not rocking the boat", believing a
> > simplistic but wrong solution, or sticking with a belief because it would
> be
> > painful to admit being wrong?)
>
> <<No -- because you evidently believe that the meanings of words like "not
> rocking
> the boat", simplistic, wrong, painful, etc. are self evident; they are not,
> and
> the reasons for people making mistakes are not easy to research. It's much
> too
> simplistic. For example, sometimes people will hold on to beliefs precisely
> because it is painful. The pleasure-pain principle of human behavior doesn't
> work as a general principle.>>
>
> Would it be fair, then, to say you acknowledge that people do not always
> choose memes that are useful, but instead choose memes that appear to them
> to have some utility, and it is in every case so complex to research the
> reasons for them making mistakes in choosing that we can never know why they
> choose wrong?
>
> [RB]
> >
> > 2. Sometimes culture evolves in a way that decreases biological fitness of
> > the hosts.
>
> <<No, I would never say that culture evolves. I would say that species may
> evolve,
> and that culture is part of the human toolkit for survival. I would further
> say
> that species can and do become extinct because they can't adapt.>>
>
> Begging the question. How about if I substitute the word "changes" for
> "evolves"?
>
> [RB]
> > Now we still have to see if you believe that it is possible for ideas to
> > spread among people or if you think everyone must come up with each new
> idea
> > in isolation. If you believe it is possible for ideas to spread, then the
> > only question remaining is how tightly that spread is reined in to the
> > benefit of the genes. Dennett says not at all. E.O. Wilson says it is. My
> > hunch is with Dennett but I'm willing to be wrong on that point---it would
> > not affect the validity of memetics.
>
> <<Maybe, but it would certainly affect the personal satisfaction of
> memics.>>
>
> Are you talking about yourself? No one else uses that term.
>
> <<Memics is my word for memetics; it requires fewer keystrokes and calls to
> mind
> memics' emphasis on imitation.>>
>
> In my mind your making up a new word smacks of ridicule. I liken it to a
> demeaning epithet applied by a religious bigot to a group of people whose
> culture he feels threatened by. Each time you use it I feel irritated. I
> believe that is your intention.
>
> Beyond that, imitation is only a small part of memetics, one that Blackmore
> focuses on and has been criticized for. I think many of the interesting ways
> memes spread cannot be classified as imitation, but rather teaching and
> learning or even unwitting conditioning.
>
> [RB]
> > Memetics is based on Darwinian evolution.
> > For
> > > someone to call Darwinism a silly metaphor is, in my mind, quite
> damaging
> > to
>
> <<It is not based on Darwinian evolution; it is based on a Darwinian
> metaphor.
> Blackmore, at least, spends some time in Meme Machine emphasizing this.>>
>
> If I read you right, you think it is silly (not useful?) to apply the
> principle of evolution of self-replicators by natural selection to culture,
> for that is the essence of memetics. It's certainly your prerogative to
> think it's silly. I don't happen to think it's silly because people are
> already engineering cults and businesses based on that principle and having
> frightening success.
>
> [RB]
> > As others have posted, all of science is "just" a metaphor. The "just" is
> > for people who think there is such a thing as absolute truth and have
> > trouble fitting evolution into their world view. I actually think I did a
> > pretty good job of explaining this in Virus of the Mind.
>
> <<As I have said before, there are metaphors and metaphors. I have asked
> repeatedly why the meme metaphor has any advantages over existing scientific
> explanations, and I get some, well, very strange answers.>>
>
> The advantage in my eyes is that it can be used for engineering. What
> existing scientific explanations do you believe are superior to predict and
> engineer lasting cultural institutions?
>
> << I might add that
> prediction is a necessary but not sufficient indicator of an adequate
> theory -
> see below. Your notion of a good theory is mostly wrong by any known
> conventions
> of science that I know of.>>
>
> Be specific or it's just more hot air.
>
> [RB]
> > I said the syringe on the cover of my book was a device to attract
> > attention, not the science of memetics itself. I suggested you not get
> hung
> > up on memes having a "life of their own" because you don't seem to
> > distinguish between concrete objects and abstractions and I thought it was
> > getting in your way.
>
> <<Not aware of the differences between concrete objects and abstractions?
> That's
> quite an observation. Elementary understanding of adequate theory is the
> following: you posit a quality of an event because it provides an
> explanatory
> advantage over other theories. You posit an independent existence, so can
> yhou
> really be surprised that I get hung up on that when you can't show the
> advantage
> of this? It's an elementary error.>>
>
> Earlier in this same message you said that predictive ability was necessary
> (but not sufficient) for a sound theory. Now you contradict yourself by
> saying that explanatory advantage is adequate. I'll assume you mean both.
You shouldn't assume that at all. My above quote refers to "explanatory
advantage" -- which is not equivalent to predictive ability although it includes
it. Included in that criterion is its coherence or lack thereof with previous
theoretical formulations and plausibility tests. Richard - I'm going to pull an
Aaron on you. There are books out there on this. What you read at MS simply was
not enough, and I'm not here to recreate in e-mail that which you can pick up
much more efficiently by reading previous works. I think Britannica on the web
should have some interesting stuff on scientific method.
>
> I'm not a scientist. I'm a college dropout. I applaud your skepticism.
> However, your ridicule of memetics is far from the open-mindedness I would
> expect from a skeptic. I would expect you to be chomping at the bit to
> understand the cool theory that all these smart people seem to espouse but
> you don't get.
I am only closed minded to anything that falsely claims to be scientific. If you
aren't a scientist, then how can you claim you are applying science? That
doesn't make any sense to me.
> <<So people evidently DID go to Blackmore to see what she says. It's not
> encouraging. A lot of Amazon reviewers think it's wonderful science fiction
> or
> far too ideological. In short, if memetics has anything going for it, it
> shouldn't hit the public before you have decent data. That's elementary.>>
>
> Fortunately you weren't around when the Bill of Rights was passed.
>
Did I ever say you didn't have the right to publish your stuff?
>
> Which particular scientific paradigm for predicting and engineering the
> future of culture did you have in mind? If I can, I'll be happy to point out
> where it's wrong.
You can't do that until you understand the nature of adequate scientific theory.
>
>
> <<OK - you really want me to read your book? The request isn't some cui bono
> thing, right? If you send it along like you said you would, I will read
> it.>>
>
> Great, please send me your address privately. You've earned a complimentary
> copy. I'm celebrating! It took me four years to get Wade to read it. :-)
>
>
> I just searched through all my posts to the memetics list containing the
> word "love" and didn't find what you are talking about. If you're interested
> and will repost the relevant sections I'll be happy to take a look.
I'm sorry. My mistake. The study's main subject was romantic love, but I derived
from my reseach stuff on reputation. Do a search on reputation.
>
>
>
> <<By the same process by which you and I argue about the nature of human
> behavior.
> We look at problems in our environment and try to figure out how to realize
> our
> goals when we run into obstacles. Is that so mysterious? Are you saying you
> yourself don't do that every day to get through life?>>
>
> No, I wouldn't describe the nature of my everyday life that way. I would
> describe it as playing most of the time.
I was afraid of that. The lifestyle of S. Cal is not necessarily conducive to...
I won't go there!
>
>
> [CP]
> > <<Selection by whom if not by active human brains evolved for certain
> kinds
> > of
> > problem solving? That is the nature of my question about the advantage of
> > assuming that memes have an independent existence. Again - when I pushed
> the
> > question, you admitted that it was just a rhetorical device -- which I
> > agreed
> > with. So what is the nature of your turnround, if there is in fact a
> > turnaround?>>
> >
>
>
> You predicted viral marketing? I'm impressed! I'd love to see where you
> predicted it. Was it natural resource exhaustion that caused it, or romantic
> love?
To see what other people were saying at the same time, you might try readingt
the Columbia Journalism Review when you aren't off playing somewhere.
>
>
>
> See if you still have these questions after you read my book.
>
>
> Please name these lots of people and cite their theories. Oh darn. I bet you
> don't have time.
Amazing that you should predict my response! Congrats. Go to any library - they
are now computerized and you can do searches very fast for exactly these
subjects. It's just too spread out for me to do the work for you.
===============================================================
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 - 22:51:57 BST