Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA22138 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:15:18 +0100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000626160846.01df9570@popmail.mcs.net> X-Sender: aaron@popmail.mcs.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:12:19 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades In-Reply-To: <20000625230832.AAA17367@camailp.harvard.edu@[205.240.180.1 21]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
At 07:08 PM 6/25/00 -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote:
>Aaron Lynch made this comment not too long ago --
>
> >The idea of
> >"engineered lies" may thus be seen as having a parasitic relationship to
> >honest science.
>
>This, and all of your post, do explain a good portion of my reluctance to
>accept what is being done in the memetic arena. As always, I truly enjoy
>your encircling inquiries and comments.
>
> >Do you think there is a subcurrent in memetics that regards "memetic
> >engineering" as including, among other things, a "new technology" of lying?
>
>Yes, and I think anyone who doesn't, in their own subcurrent, regard
>'memetic engineering' as a new technology of lying is only fooling
>themselves.
>
>As to how to conduct an experiment to control and analyze the
>distribution of a 'meme' without first instigating a new meme, well, I'm
>at a loss. The problem, as I see it, with 'engineering' a 'new' meme for
>the purposes of experiment is that it is a lie to say one can create a
>new meme, and since total context is, as in all evolution, a necessary
>part of the experiment, narrowing the environment to construct a meme
>creates a false culture.
>
>I would rather see memetic analysis of narrow cultures, than attempts to
>'engineer' memetic elements even for experimental purposes.
<snip>
Thanks, Wade.
My own interest is also mainly in the analysis of the evolutionary forces
acting on cultures. However, efforts to use such analysis to generate an
applied science have a tendency to bypass evolution by resorting to
"intelligent design" by humans. As your comment suggests, performing such
"intelligent design" experiments is not exactly the same thing as doing a
memetic evolution experiment. Hence, such experiments would not really
count as tests of a thesis of memetic evolution by something we would tend
to call natural selection.
The questions of whether or how one might bypass evolution to enhance or
reduce the recursive transmission of various ideas or innovations are
matters that I prefer not to discuss publicly. However, in any context were
I might want to discuss such matters, I would not want to have it
associated with either hype or "designer lies." So if I were to have such a
discussion in private, I might not use the term "memetic engineering." I
also would not use the term "viral marketing."
--Aaron Lynch
===============================================================
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 : Tue Jun 27 2000 - 01:16:04 BST