Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA25712 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:06:08 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745AF6@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Tests show a human side to chimps Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:03:51 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>A philosopher would ask: what does "inherently" mean there?
Fair point- clarifying how terms are used is always important (it's called
definition).
>Now, assuming we don't instantly dissolve into giggles, or just
>lose the plot without even the excuse of finging it funny, that's
>a very useful question. To get anywhere, you have take one step
>at a time, and I think that's the best first step we could take
>in this case.
Absolutely in agreement
>It is not obvious, on the face of it, that all thought is a quest
for
>meaning. For instance, I might think "What will I have for tea
tonight?"
>That thought seems to be concerned with feeding myself. So, for
what
>sense of "inherently" is it true that thinking "What will I have
for
>tea tonight?" is inherently a quest for meaning?
>I'd suggest there's no such sense. "All human thought is
inherently
>a quest for meaning" is a coded way of saying "questing for meaning
>is the most important thing we do". But it's an illegitimate code,
>because it disguises a value judgement ("...most important...") as
a
>factual statement ("...is inherently...").
>I suspect there's a potential generalisation here, whereby most or
all
>such reductionist claims conceal evaluative assumptions, but then
I'm
>afraid of being hoist by my own petard...
I follow this point and don't necessarily disagree with it. But I would add
a couple of codas. First I made this point in the original context of the
piece on chimps' theory of mind, and was essentially referring to what I
suppose we might call all non-libidinal thought (i.e. when we're not
thinking about food, sex, finding shelter etc.). Second, I think you're
right to say that there's an evaluative element to categorising thought, but
then there's an irreducible evaluative content to all thought and behaviour,
as I believe has been discussed before.
To put this another way, do chimps ask themselves 'why are we here?',
'what's life all about?', 'what is my purpose in life?', 'how should one
behave?' etc.?
> > We want to know answers to questions, and most of all we want to know
> why.
>
>I don't. "Why", out on its own like that, doesn't mean anything to
me.
>And I suspect I'm not alone.
>(Who'd have thought you're the rationalist and I'm the
religionist?!)
I didn't say one could answer those questions. I should have included the
point that's been made by many scientists, that the problem is that science
can't answer 'why' questions, it can only (try and) answer 'how' questions,
e.g. how did the universe begin is a very different question to why did it
begin, and of course most scientists don't care about why questions very
much as a result. But the evidence for most people continuing to ask why
questions is all around us, and is inherent in philosophy (there I used it
again!).
>What makes us open to memes, generally, is the fact that we're an
>intelligent, social species. What makes us SO open to SUCH
ridiculous
>memes is the fact that we don't know either what's good for us, or
what
>will make us happy. No big mystery.
I've a seminar to teach, so I'll think on this last comment.
Vincent
===============================================================
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 : Fri Nov 10 2000 - 09:07:32 GMT