From: Scott Chase (ecphoric@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu 06 Mar 2003 - 03:51:18 GMT
>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 21:35:15 -0600
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >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?
>
>
I was referring to limitations of evidence, not discounting the whole
endeavor of reconstructing the past. I'm probably grossly bastardizing
Popper's sentiment when I say that you've gotta take a conjecture and drag
it behind your car at 100mph on a gravel road and whatever is left you've
gotta run through a meat grinder and then you've gotta take what remains
from this and subject it to a pressure washer filled with hydrocloric acid.
If anything remains you might have something to work with.
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
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 archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 06 Mar 2003 - 03:47:46 GMT