Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA16659 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:05:59 GMT Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:14:38 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia? Message-ID: <20010115131438.A3878@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <20010114152449.A2152@reborntechnology.co.uk> <B68741F9.690F%bbenzon@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i In-Reply-To: <B68741F9.690F%bbenzon@mindspring.com>; from bbenzon@mindspring.com on Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 11:46:03AM -0500 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 11:46:03AM -0500, William Benzon wrote:
> on 1/14/01 10:24 AM, Robin Faichney at robin@reborntechnology.co.uk wrote:
> > Given Blackmore's commitment to Buddhism, I think it safe to assume she
> > does NOT belong in that camp.
>
> Given her chapter on "Religons as memeplexes" in her book I'd say she pretty
> much does.
OK. It's been a while since I looked at the book, I've never read that
chapter, and I forgot it existed. She obviously does not consider her
favoured variety of Buddhism to be a religion. And to be fair, there
is plenty of precedent for that sort of attitude. One of the first
things I remember ever hearing about Buddhism was "it's not a religion,
it's a philosophy".
> > Of the others, Dawkins is the only one that
> > I know does. But whatever, there is very little that can reasonably be
> > considered "orthodox memetics" --
>
> Yeah, I'm no doubt over-stating my case. From my point of view, everyone
> who believes in memes in the head is an orthdox memeticist. Of course,
> that's a pretty large and diverse group of people. That means that Derek
> Gatherer and I and a few others are not adherents to this bit of orthodoxy.
Though I view memes as encoded both in brain states and in behaviours,
I don't think I believe in what you call "memes in the head". I certainly
don't believe that brain-encoded memes will ever be identified. The
study of specific memes will always have to focus on behaviours and
artefacts.
> > that, surely, is one of its weaknesses.
> > I'd suggest that you succumb to the temptation to take the worst as
> > typical due to your anti-memetic prejudice. This is an extremely
> > successful meme, to be found just about anywhere there's any prejudice,
> > whatsoever, even when it means imagining concensus where there's none.
>
> I would suggest that before you make any more silly statements about why I
> say what I do that you do me the courtesy of taking the time to read my
> technical discussions of cultural evolution. I am certainly opposed to the
> notion of memes in the head, but not to the idea of memes as such, and that
> is the position I've taken in my published work. In particular:
My mistake: instead of "your anti-memetic prejudice", I should have
said "your attitude towards what you view as memetic orthodoxy". But the
substance of what I said remains: the concept of memetic orthodoxy is
highly dubious, at best.
> > By the way, as far as I'm concerned, that memetic way of talking is
> > just that: a way of talking. At this level, that of the specific
> > meme, it has no significant explanatory power. Much better, most
> > times, to use psychology, etc. So I'm on your side in this. But the
> > fundamentals of memetics are useful at a higher level of abstraction.
> > It provides a way of thinking in objective terms
>
> In what way is loose talk "objective"?
I didn't say "loose talk". I don't know where you got that from.
> > about recurring patterns
> > of non-genetically-determined behaviour. As far as I'm aware, there is
> > no alternative to it, in this.
>
> You've got to be kidding. Do you really mean this? Or, rather, just what
> do you mean?
One of Dawkins' main motivations in bringing forward the concept was to
account, in terms as "fundamental" as those of the principles of genetics,
for behaviour that is not genetically determined. I believe that he
succeeded -- in very broad terms, obviously -- and my main interest in
memetics stems from that. However, you have to understand that this
only works at a high level of abstraction. At that level, genes and
memes between them account for all behaviour. But at lower levels,
when you start to look at specific behaviours, you obviously have to
take specific factors such as individual psychology into account.
If you're one of those people who has no interest in such philosophical
considerations -- maybe that's where "loose talk" comes from -- then
that will mean little or nothing to you, and I would not waste my time
in further discussion of this with you.
-- Robin Faichney robin@reborntechnology.co.uk=============================================================== 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 : Mon Jan 15 2001 - 14:07:32 GMT