Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA07006 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 12 Oct 2000 02:18:58 +0100 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:16:15 +1100 From: John Wilkins <wilkins@wehi.EDU.AU> Subject: Wimsatt on memes at the Uni Pittsburgh To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Message-ID: <MailDrop1.2d7j-PPC.1001012121615@mac463.wehi.edu.au> X-Authenticated: <wilkins@wehiz.wehi.edu.au> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
I found this at <http://www.pitt.edu/~pittcntr/frschedule.html> and
thought it interesting to the group:
ANNUAL LECTURE SERIES:
"Evolution Meets Development: The Case of Cultural Evolution"
William Wimsatt, University of Chicago
Friday, October 13, 2000, 3:30 p.m.
817R Cathedral of Learning
ABSTRACT:
Evolutionary theory was transformed by the elaboration of the theory of
the gene, of genetics and of population genetics. Evolutionary theories
of culture have tried to imitate this success, with "memes" as analogues
to "genes", seeking to construct a theory of the meme, a memetics and a
population memetics to give a theory of cultural microevolution. This is
a serious mistake: there is no memetics to be had, and the search for
the microstructure of memes leads away from an understanding of how they
work. But there are other possible sources of structure to use in
constructing theory. The first are analogues to population structure.
The second, discussed here, are developmental structures with
evolutionary implications.
Before the rise of genetics, heredity and development were regarded as
inseparable problems. With the elaboration of genetics, development was
increasingly ignored. Evolutionary theory is now invigorated by
"evo-devo": the beginning reintegration of these two areas. For deep
theoretical reasons, the problems of heredity and development are even
more intimately linked for culture than they are for biology. But the
balance for the two processes in their integration is different and
affects the most salutory form for theory in the two cases: for biology,
heredity is much easier to study. Similar reasons must put
developmental concerns to the fore for culture. I explore how they can
be exploited to construct a richer theory of cultural evolution.
Theories of cultural evolution need to pay much more attention than we
have to the fine structure of ideas and cultural practices of the sort
studied by humanists, historians, and anthropologists. This isn't just
a conciliatory gesture: the possibility of having generative systems
which transmit and maintain myriad fine details is crucial to what it is
to have a culture, a symbolic system, and intentionality. It is also
characteristic of systems for which historical explanation is important
and contingency matters. We need to look for mechanisms which breed
complexity and richness. Selection alone will not do it. I will show
that processes of generative entrenchment (a class of developmental
constraints) add an irreversibility and a historicity to the process
which does.
--John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research Melbourne, Australia <mailto:wilkins@WEHI.EDU.AU> <http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html> Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
===============================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 : Thu Oct 12 2000 - 02:20:19 BST