RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Feb 06 2001 - 12:07:08 GMT

  • Next message: joedees@bellsouth.net: "RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA13120 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:07:58 GMT
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C38@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
    To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
    Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:07:08 -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
    

    >> I wouldn't dispute the idea that a difference between
    culture and
    > >> nature is the notion of "choice" (although I suspect philosophically
    > this is
    > >> actually quite a complex concept), but choice isn't everything. Lots
    > of
    >
            <I would dispute this. Choice is the end-result of a series of
    retained
    > successful past trials and errors, or it is arbitrary and there is no
    > correlation between the choices made and the success of these choices.
    > This is, after all, the implication of Hume's problem of induction. This
    > in no way differs qualitatively from what occurs in "nature" (nor should
    > it, if humans are part of nature).>
    >
            Well isn't this the old chesnut of other organisms using trial and
    error whilst humans make informed choices? I'm not saying I buy into that,
    I was just questioning the idea that appeared to be presented that memetics
    was grounded in choice (in the sense of conscious, motivated and informed
    decision making).

    > >> people follow all sorts of trends, customs etc. without knowing why
    > (what
    > >> for) or the origins of such customs, but just do so. A recent
    > anecdotal
    >
            <As Dave Rindos observed in one of his essays, we can treat human
    > intentions as a Gaussian distribution and so no different to mutations
    > or recombination in genetic populations. It is still subjected to
    > selection and drift.>
    >
            Yep, which is why culture can be seen as an evolutionary process,
    conscious and deliberate choice needn't be a factor.

    >> example comes from a politics teacher in the local school my wife
    works in
    >> as a careers adviser. One of the kids asked the politics teacher
    where the
    >> terms left wing and right wing came from, as they do seem
    arbitrary, and she
    >> didn't know (neither did my wife who's first degree is in
    politics, and
    >> neither did I). Part of the initial appeal of memetics is those
    cultural

            <I believe it came from the seating arrangements in the French
    > revolutionary Assembly.>
    >
            Yes, that's what it says in all the dictionaries/encyclopedias I
    checked. What they don't say though is why this classification has been so
    widely taken up (in European democracies anyway).

    > >> trends that persist regardless of personal choice. Genes have nature,
    > memes
    > >> have culture. Leaving aside the issue of whether or not religions are
    >> memes, for the moment, it's quite clear that many (most?) people
    do not

            <Religions are complex traditions comprised of many elements. At
    best the
    > elements are the memes, and the religion is a "memeplex".>
    >
            Well, as I said I was trying to leave that issue aside, since it's
    been well discussed. If you're talking about the doctrines and rituals
    here, then I'd agree with you. If you're talking about the beliefs then I
    don't, but others do.

    > >>choose their religion but adopt that of the family, community and
    > culture
    > >> around them, so much so that people will claim to be born to a
    > religion. In
    > > >some cultures, there is little choice but to accept a certain faith or
    > else
    > >> to face exile from, or persecution within, that culture.
    > > > Seeing free will or choice as the determinant of memes thus is
    > not
    > >> the full picture.
    >
            <Particularly as many organisms clearly have intentions. If a
    gazelle
    > wants anything, it wants to avoid being eaten by the predator...>
    >
            Again, the core conundrum. Does the Gazelle on seeing the cheetah
    running towards them, think 'Oh dear, I don't want to get eaten, I'd better
    run for it', or does it just run? Intentionality in animals is one of those
    difficult areas, and one of those whereof I should not speak.

            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 : Tue Feb 06 2001 - 12:09:55 GMT