Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA27078 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:17:15 GMT Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:19:28 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Message-ID: <20010215171928.B1188@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C78@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C78@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:33:30PM -0000 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:33:30PM -0000, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> >> The problem for memetics, perhaps, is that such things may
> be
> > >> explainable simply in terms of individual and social psychology, with
> > no
> > >> need for memes at all.
> >
> <Beep! False dichotomy. This really needs sorting out. Memetics
> and
> > psychology are different explanations, but they are NOT mutually
> > exclusive! Psychology is one (large) sector of the environment in which
> > memes survive or not as the case may be.>
> >
> I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, and I certainly don't
> think that per se,
OK, sorry for taking the bee in my bonnet out on you (to mix a metaphor).
> my point was merely some processes of shared behaviour
> between individuals has already been reasonably well explained by
> established models, and I guess I was just after a re-affirmation of what
> memetics adds that is new and insightful by way of offering an explanation
> of the kinds of things being discussed at the moment (movie catch-phrases).
I'm not sure memetics helps much in explaining any particular example.
What does it tell us? Patterns in behaviour (and, therefore, in
brains) that are good at survival via reproduction, go on surviving
via reproduction. What makes them so good is something we have to go
outside of memetics to see. The reason some short musical phrases act
as terrific "hooks" is something I find intriguing, and the effects are
classically memetic, but the causes are deep in the auditory-emotional
wiring of the brain. This is exactly the same situation as for the
principles of biological evolution: at its most basic, it is circular
(though to understand it is STILL infinitely better than not to do so
-- its circularity doesn't diminish that fact at all). But there seems
to be much more to genetics than that, because the practical details of
biological development are typically approached from a genetic point of
view, whereas, for various reasons, the practical details of cultural
development have in many cases been quite deeply gone into using other
paradigms, so there isn't much left for memetics to do, apart from
supplying the overarching theme, as in "Patterns in behaviour..."
> I may simply need to go back and re-read the basic memetics texts again,
> it's just that after the research seminar the other day (where this point
> was raised by a few people), and after reading Cavalli-Sforza's chapter on
> cultural evolution (in which he used ideas like transmission and imitation,
> but not memes), I've been struck again by this question of what's genuinely
> new about the theory of memetics?
>
> <Memetics can't explain anything that can't already be explained
> > without it. >
> >
> I'm sorry, I'm not sure I follow this sentence. Are you saying that
> there are things that other theories have failed to explain things that only
> memetics can explain? (I'm not disputing that, necessarily, just trying to
> understand what you mean).
Sorry for the double negative. I'm actually saying exactly the opposite.
(As you may already have guessed.)
> < What it can do is give us a handle on these things at a
> > higher level of abstraction, another angle. In the most objective terms,
> > neither the longevity of items of information (genes and memes) nor the
> > well-being of any individual or species or ecosystem really matters.
> > But we find it useful, for different purposes, to think and act as if
> > one of these things did matter, which particular thing depending on what
> > we're wanting to achieve at the time.>
> >
> I see what you're saying here, but isn't there the risk of
> over-egging the pudding? If an existing theory offers a relatively robust
> explanation of a social or psychological process, then why complicate
> matters- except to try and address gaps in existing theories.
Agreed.
> In order to
> do that, one needs to identify first what those gaps are, and then explain
> why memetics can answer those questions, how, and eventually offer some
> empirical evidence to demonstrate this.
As I said, I don't see memetics providing specifics. Other disciplines
are already too well-developed, so there's nothing left for memetics --
at that level. For me, it's of purely theoretical interest. Was Dawkins
correct _in_principle_ when he supposed that memes could explain all
behaviour that genes cannot? That for me is the issue. In practice,
it ain't gonna happen. Both because the calculations are far too
complicated, even for quantum computing, and because there's no need,
with all the other tools at our disposal. The combination of these two
factors is, to my mind, absolutely insurmountable.
> Don't get me wrong, I've defended memetics' theorising on this list,
> but at some point, the bottom line will be original evidence that doesn't
> stem from previous research conducted under different theories that were
> quite satisfactory in their own terms.
There's more to life, and even to serious study, than science. Some
extremely valuable developments are entirely conceptual, ie come under
the remit of philosophy rather than science. Not everything is to be
tested directly -- some things, that help us formulate testable theories,
can themselves only be tested indirectly. Philosophy is a set of tools to
help us formulate testable theories (and also, to some extent, to help us
handle untestables, matters of opinion rather than fact, such as values).
-- 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 : Thu Feb 15 2001 - 18:19:38 GMT