Re: memetics-digest V1 #1302

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu 06 Mar 2003 - 03:35:15 GMT

  • Next message: joedees@bellsouth.net: "Dnosaurs and Cultures"

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >From: joedees@bellsouth.net
    > >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > >Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #1302
    > >Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:20:36 -0600
    > >
    > > >
    > > > On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 01:18 PM, memetics-digest wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > This argument is kinda like saying that unless exact genetic
    > > > > replication occurs, that the theory of evolution is flawed.
    > > >
    > > > Kinda like, perhaps. Mostly like, no way.
    > > >
    > > > > But it is precisely the
    > > > > natural selection between natural occurring deviances that
    > > > > allows for evolution to occur.
    > > >
    > > > No argument, but, hmmm, we can't duplicate the conditions that
    > > > this natural selection occured within, can we? Nope, that
    > > > time/space is gone.
    > > >
    > >Which is exactly why a different environmental condition might select
    > >for a different mutation among the subsequent alternatives - in other
    > >wortds, evolution continues.
    > > >
    > > > > The difference is that, in memetics, those deviations
    > > > > (mutations) may be intended, and indeed engineered - as can be
    > > > > the selection.
    > > >
    > > > There is no _necessity_ that any of the 'mutations' in memetic
    > > > transfer (cultural transmission) be intended or engineered, and no
    > > > one is arguing that intention may _not_ be a part of cultural
    > > > mechanisms.
    > > >
    > >That's right; intention cannot be a priori ruled out, and given out
    > >experience, it would seem counterintuitive to do so.
    > > >
    > > > But, yes, I am arguing that intention need not be communicated, at
    > > > all, and can be lost for all time.
    > > >
    > >But the communication of intention is not prohibited, and indeed, is
    > >quite memetically ubiquitous.
    > >
    > >
    > But what Wade says about intention being irrevocably lost is too
    > important to overlook. Someone might find an old village site and
    > escavate it. They might come to the conclusion that for some reason
    > the structures of the village were arranged in a particular manner,
    > but the reasons for that arrangement have long vanished. Some
    > fragments of utensils and various other artificats may be found, but
    > with little or no indication of what theses things were for. There
    > might be enough evidence to indicate there was a ceremony or ritual
    > associated with the site, perhaps based on other lines of evidence
    > gained from studying a certain culture, but the mythos behind the
    > ceremony and its particular protocols may have permanently vanished.
    >
    Memes, like speacies, are born, flourish, decline and die. What's so remarkable about this? And who would ever claim that the dead, either memetic or genetic, had not once lived?
    > _________________________________________________________________
    > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
    > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 2.1.5 : Thu 06 Mar 2003 - 03:32:11 GMT