Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA08964 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 14 Nov 2000 14:51:24 GMT Message-ID: <A4400389479FD3118C9400508B0FF2300410BF@DELTA.newhouse.akzonobel.nl> From: "Gatherer, D. (Derek)" <D.Gatherer@organon.nhe.akzonobel.nl> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Tests show a human side to chimps Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:45:34 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Mark:
The 'neural meme' position revises the above slightly. 'Imitated behavioral
characteristics' are 'neural meme phenotypes.'
Wade:
I think my main question (one I've been carrying on this road all along,
as it seems) is- isn't there a reason to need a 'theory of mind' then,
before one can start a 'theory of memetics'?
Derek:
Yes, but only if you think that memetics is about the mind (which I don't of
course). I still think theories of the mind are interesting, but I don't
think that the adoption of one or other theory of the mind should
necessarily affect what one believes about memetics. _Internalist_
memetics, on the other hand, seems to _require_ a very odd theory of the
mind.
Wade:
If imitative behavioral characteristics would appear to be within and
constrained by a biologic and developmental organism (a bird, i.e.)...
Derek:
Splitting your question into 2 parts, the answer to the above is:
But are they so constrained?, because cultural replicators are strong enough
to start pushing the genetic replicators - eg. lactose utilisation in
humans; Europeans, Middle Easterners and many Africans are now _genetically_
adapted to the _cultural_ trait of milk drinking. Culture can constrain
genetics too.
Wade: (part 2)
........and culture would appear to be a niche of the adapted environment,
then where
(and why...) does one bring in memetics?
Derek:
One brings it in for situations where it is evident that genetic variation
is not the primary contributor to phenotypic variation, and where
environmental variation is not enough to explain the residual. Since
Vincent was asking about diffusion of innovations yesterday, how about
Rogers' classic example of water boiling in Peru. Those who boil water have
a survival edge over those who just drink it straight down, bugs and all.
There is no evidence of any genetic variation that would explain this, no
'fastidiousness' gene, and there is no environmental explanation, boilers
and non-boilers exist together in the same village. So what's left is
cultural transmission, and there is the scope for memetics.
===============================================================
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 Nov 14 2000 - 14:52:44 GMT