RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution

From: Lawrence DeBivort (debivort@umd5.umd.edu)
Date: Tue Feb 06 2001 - 17:39:48 GMT

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

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA17295 (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 18:21:58 GMT
    From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
    Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:39:48 -0500
    Message-ID: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMACEKKCAAA.debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
    In-Reply-To: <3A7FE1F3.1663.32C355F@localhost>
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
    Importance: Normal
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    A point of clarification, Joe,

    <snip>

    Joe Dees:
    (such
    as a request to use nonlinguistic auditory perception correlating
    with one part of the brain lighting up, and linguistic auditory
    perception correlating with another, and nontext visual perception
    with a third, and text-reading visual perception with a fourth, and
    memory with a fifth, and so on, and the subjects can direct those
    areas to light up on the PET scan at will (like BIOFEEDBACK,
    Robin)), it is reasonable to conclude by any scientific model you
    care to name that such a high statistical correlation entails the
    high-confidence likelihood that the subjects are indeed succeeding
    in doing what they are trying to do; selectively access certain parts
    of their brains which operate on the contents and forms requested,
    and this involves both conscious self-awareness and efficacious
    volition.

    <snip>

    Lawrence de Bivort:
    Agreeing with the correlation between cognitive tasks (visual, linguisitic,
    non-linguistic auditory, etc.,)and brain area activity, we still cannot (nor
    perhaps need to say) that the subject is consciously or deliberately
    activating a specific part of their brain: rather, they are consciously
    selecting only a cognitive task, whose performance is/happens to be carried
    out by a specific part of the brain. I make this observation because we
    'use' our brains without much awareness of what our brains are doing to
    enable their use. Brains get a high-level command (see this, read that) and
    then execute, without meta-feedback to the subject. In my view, this
    automaticity of the brain's response has a lot to do with our perception (or
    lack or perception) of how memes are 'accepted', of 'free will' and choice,
    etc.

    And it presents a wonderful image of a person's brain trying to generate a
    meta-understanding of how that highly automated brain works; the thing that
    gives us consciouness itself operates without directly giving us the
    information with which to understand the processes of that consciousness.
    Yet we tackle the job persistently, with argumentation, logic, PET scans,
    stimulus probes, head trauma studies, etc. We can applaud this
    persistence... There is something so very human about it.

    - Lawrence

    ===============================================================
    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 - 18:23:58 GMT