RE: Tests show a human side to chimps

From: Mark Mills (mmills@htcomp.net)
Date: Tue Nov 14 2000 - 16:00:59 GMT

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: Tests show a human side to chimps"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA09234 (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 16:08:11 GMT
    Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001114091910.0246f040@pop3.htcomp.net>
    X-Sender: mmills@pop3.htcomp.net
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0
    Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:00:59 -0600
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    From: Mark Mills <mmills@htcomp.net>
    Subject: RE: Tests show a human side to chimps
    In-Reply-To: <20001114134349.AAA15281@camailp.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.2 15]>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Wade,

    At 08:43 AM 11/14/00 -0500, you wrote:
    >On 11/13/00 15:25, Mark Mills said this-
    >
    > >The 'neural meme' position revises the above slightly. 'Imitated behavioral
    > >characteristics' are 'neural meme phenotypes.'
    >
    >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'?

    I basically agree with Derek on the limited need for a theory of mind. We
    all have something of a 'default' theory of mind. We don't know what
    'mind' is, but we all seem to assume that other minds exist. Despite
    having any definitive idea of what mind is, 'mind' is generally assumed to
    be uniquely human. There is some debate over the ability of chimps to
    exhibit a theory of mind, but the combination of (1) a universal assumption
    that mind exists and (2) universal inability to define what it is, produces
    little more than an argument over the number of angels on a pinhead.

    >If imitative behavioral characteristics would appear to be within and
    >constrained by a biologic and developmental organism (a bird, i.e.), and
    >culture would appear to be a niche of the adapted environment, then where
    >(and why...) does one bring in memetics?

    I basically agree with Robin's answer.

    Mark

    http://www.htcomp.net/markmills

    ===============================================================
    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 - 16:09:39 GMT