RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution

From: Scott Chase (ecphoric@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Feb 10 2001 - 00:17:38 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA03226 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 10 Feb 2001 00:20:13 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: [209.240.220.143]
    From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
    Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 19:17:38 -0500
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <F20ogupahSO7ZVNBymp00015ba4@hotmail.com>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Feb 2001 00:17:38.0876 (UTC) FILETIME=[E04767C0:01C092F6]
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    >From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
    >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    >To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    >Subject: RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
    >Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 17:31:08 -0000
    >
    > >> most memetic mutations must occur not within a mind but between
    >minds
    >
    > <I'm not so sure - where do most 'new' ideas come from? I'd say
    >those
    > > that arise as a result of miscopying between actors are a minority (but
    > > I wouldn't like to put a figure on it); it seems to me that the majority
    > > of novel memes come from the interactions between resident memes in a
    > > mind (or in a group 'think tank' style, 'bouncing' ideas around [a
    > > metamind?]). Although the overwhelming bulk of these come originally
    > > from outside, the change seems (to me) to occur within a mind rather
    > > than in transfer. After all we have the old thing about whether two
    > > people can ever have the 'same' meme, because if you break it down they
    > > will have used different resident info to model the idea which is being
    > > transferred.>
    > >
    > Well, there are clear examples of behaviours emerging out of highly
    >suspect interpretations of external recorded information, such as the snake
    >handling christian sects that base their practices on what is, to any sane
    >person, a woeful misreading of the last few verses of Mark's gospel- verses
    >which historians aren't convinced even belong there anyway (since the two
    >earliest known manuscripts of this gospel don't include these verses- check
    >your bible to see if it mentions this, many editions do). Of course they
    >think they're doing god's bidding as laid down in the divine word of the
    >bible, but that doesn't mean they've accurately inferred what Mark was
    >trying to get across. (that's Mark the disciple, and not Mark Mills of this
    >list :-)).
    >
    >
    Don't these snake-handler go into some strange trance as they hold pit
    vipers (ie-rattlesnakes in U.S.). My recollection is that they drink
    strychnine too, but maybe in amounts not quite fatal but with neurotropic
    effects.

    _________________________________________________________________
    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

    ===============================================================
    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 : Sat Feb 10 2001 - 00:22:21 GMT