From: Chris Taylor (christ@ebi.ac.uk)
Date: Tue 26 Apr 2005 - 11:46:43 GMT
Okay so this is linked to my vague point about imagination: Is it simply
the case that this ability to recontextualise a pattern, and to exploit
serendipitous accidents (either in the world, or internally) is much
more advanced in us, but no different in kind; or is there more?
Is it the ability to deconstruct and recombine disparate parts that is
the key (fish genes in tomato iyswim), or can 'lower' forms do that too,
but again to a less advanced (=speedy?) degree?
Maybe we can think of 'living' ~memes as 'beginning' in a similar way to
the kinds of piggybacking genetic elements that exploit the copying
machinery of the nucleus (something that is still really poorly
understood actually, as we can't really get stuck in until we know how
genomes work). For instance a simple one Keith touched on is bird song
-- for some passerines, the more songs you know, the better
(reproductively speaking). This is I'd assume an indicator that (1) your
brain works better than okay, which is a good telltale for genetic
fitness and (2) you are a cluey lil' bugger that has lived long enough
to pick up lots of tunes (and other behaviours?). But what of the songs
themselves? They are alive by a Shannon/Bianchi+Hamann-style definition...
Cheers, Chris.
Kate Distin wrote:
> Keith Henson wrote:
>
>
>>>> . If an animal picks up behavior modifying information from another
>>>> animal, that's a meme being passed. The ability to pass information
>>>> from one animal to another comes originally from animal's ability to
>>>> learn.
>>>> Mammals are generally good at this, primates are very good, great
>>>> apes even better, and humans unsurpassed. It isn't hard to see
>>>> where the mental capacity to support culture comes from (where
>>>> memes are elements of culture).
>>>> snip
>>>> Keith Henson
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd agree with this "continuum" view, although as I've said elsewhere
>>> today I wouldn't therefore automatically describe what animals do as
>>> memetic.
>>
>>
>>
>> Did they learn if from another animal? By definition that makes it a
>> meme, and potentially subject to the effects of evolution. (Birds
>> opening milk bottles for example.)
>> Keith
>>
>
>
>
> OK - as you say, this is mostly a terminological quibble. I've found it
> useful to distinguish between the sort of culture that can "take off" in
> its evolution in the way that human culture has, and the sort that is
> context-bound in the way that (most? all?) animal culture is. Just as
> genes will have evolved from some more primitive biological stuff, so it
> makes sense to me that memes will have evolved from some more primitive
> mental/cultural "stuff" (which is merely a lazy use of language rather
> than a crack in the door through which Descartes can slip!). And, as
> I've said, the distinction strikes me as useful.
>
> Kate
>
> ===============================================================
> 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
>
>
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Taylor (christ@ebi.ac.uk) HUPO PSI: GPS -- psidev.sf.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ =============================================================== 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 : Tue 26 Apr 2005 - 12:03:39 GMT