Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA14803 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:06:32 GMT User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.0 (1513) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 16:02:54 -0500 Subject: Re: Memes in the head From: William Benzon <bbenzon@mindspring.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Message-ID: <B6877E26.6923%bbenzon@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <JJEIIFOCALCJKOFDFAHBIECMCCAA.richard@brodietech.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
on 1/14/01 12:43 PM, Richard Brodie at richard@brodietech.com wrote:
> Here's a thought experiment. Transport the entire population of the earth to
> another planet, one without any artifacts of any kind but with plenty of raw
> materials... a kind of "Gilligan's Island" on a larger scale. People have
> full memories of everything they used to do, the toys they used to play
> with, scientific gadgets, and so on... certainly not a perfect memory but
> just the level you'd expect.
>
> Do you think people would eventually recreate some parts of their old
> familiar culture? Speak the same language they used to speak? Play baseball?
>
> Now take a population of people who have been cloned and kept in isolation
> since birth with no access to any sensory input at all. Put them back on our
> now-deserted earth amidst all the artifacts, etc. What would happen? Would
> they set about replicating all the existing artifacts?
>
> I think the answer to the first question is a clear yes, underscoring the
> usefulness of the model of memes in the head. I would guess the answer to
> the second question would also be yes, to a degree, although it's doubtful
> they would end up speaking the "dead" languages of all our books even if
> they succeeded in understanding them.
>
This is a good example of the kind of thinking that gives me little hope for
internalist memetics.
I agree that the first group would be likely to recreate bits and pieces of
their old cultures. But I don't see what we gain by saying that there is
anything in their heads that can be called memes. When I deny that there
are memes in the head, I am not at ally denying that people have ideas etc.
somehow in their brains. I just don't see they those things are memes.
That is to say, I don't see that those things play a role in cultural
evolution that is parallel to that played by genes in biological evolution.
Having already cited my own work several times, I won't do it again. But if
you want to see why I say that, that's where you should go.
As for the second scenario, in view of what we know about the nature of
human development, it simply doesn't make any sense. People in such a
situation would simply be nonfunctional and would probably die early in
life. Without sensory input, and without interaction with other people,
their brains wouldn't grow appropriately. They simply wouldn't get even to
the point of making up some new half-assed culture. They probably wouldn't
even survive to adulthood unless our experimenters took extreme measures to
nourish them and to keep them from dying. We know, for example, that
infacts in orphanages without any significant social interaction will often
die for no apparent reason (see John Bowlby's 1969 classic on Attachment for
examples and citations).
===============================================================
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 : Sun Jan 14 2001 - 21:08:06 GMT