Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA10389 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 19 Feb 2001 16:27:33 GMT Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010219105519.00a6bb70@mail.clarityconnect.com> X-Sender: rrecchia@mail.clarityconnect.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 11:25:58 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Ray Recchia <rrecchia@mail.clarityconnect.com> Subject: RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C8C@inchna.stir.ac.uk > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Joe wrote
> < It is quite reasonable to assume that before the pharynx dropped
>and allowed
> > evolving humans to enunciate deep vowels such as "oh" and "ue",
> > increasing our number of possible distinguishable phonemes
> > beyond the number required for the phonemic principle of language
> > to factorialize combinations into an open-ended polysyllabic
> > language system (as part of the metamutation that hijacked the
> > evolutionarily elaborated - through tool use - hand-eye coordination
> > system for use byn the mouth-ear nexus), yet subsequent to our
> > evolving the prerequisite self-consciousness to conceive of and
> > execute ideal tool shapes such as the Acheulian hand axe, that
> > our truncated sound system consisted largely verbal signs for the
> > most common concrete particular classes, and that elaboration
> > from that middle point in the dual directions of particularization and
> > generalization happened subsequently.>
> >
Vincent wrote
> Joe, you do realise this is one sentence don't you?
I'll parse it. In my job I'm used to deciphering run on sentences.
Joe believes that the mental capacity for enhanced symbol manipulation and
tool use evolved prior to the time the physical capacity of our vocal
chords increased Joe believes that this enhanced symbol manipulation is
tied into 'self consciousness' . Joe thinks that our initial symbol
manipulation used mid level categorizations like 'tree' and 'rock' and
'water'. By particularizations Joe would be referring to mental
categorizations like pine tree and metamorphic rock. Joe is saying that
although pine trees and leafy trees are different, we started with an
ability to recognize them as being part of the same categories. On the
other hand categories like 'tribe' and 'living organism' might have been
too abstract for primitive man.
There is clear evidence that animals are capable of some fairly abstract
categorizations. Irene Maxine Pepperberg has worked with parrots for
going on thirty years and has demonstrated that they can identify quantity.
color, and texture. The big leap for humans, which animals have a far more
limited capacity for, is to attach these categorizations to vocal or other
symbols which can then be independently manipulated.
I'm not the greatest writer in the world and certainly don't possess the
capacity to spew out paragraph after paragraph in a rapid fashion as other
posters on this list do, and let me it clear that I think Joe is very
bright, and spent a lot of time thinking about cultural evolution and human
consciousness. However, when I see a sentence like the one Joe wrote above
I wonder if he really has a problem with run on sentences or whether as
when he refers to other posters as 'nimrod' or 'idiot', Joe's purpose is
less to communicate than to assert superiority.
Raymond Recchia
===============================================================
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 Feb 19 2001 - 16:29:47 GMT