Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA11578 (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 23:15:05 GMT From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:18:52 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Message-ID: <3A91557C.7229.6375DE@localhost> In-reply-to: <5.0.2.1.0.20010219105519.00a6bb70@mail.clarityconnect.com> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C8C@inchna.stir.ac.uk > X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 19 Feb 2001, at 11:25, Ray Recchia wrote:
> 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 by 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 of 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.
>
It may be a lengthy sentence, but it is grammatically correct, and
faithfully (although elaborately) and clearly communicates a subtly
nuanced and complex dependency relationship. Sometimes
concision must be sacrificed for the sake of precision. You are
correct that I should attempt to keep ad hominems out of the
discussion, and just refer to the offending absurdities as idiotic,
rather than to their authors as idiots. I am much more interested in
whether an idea makes sense than who authors it, and have both
praised and panned the same people, depending upon whether
what they posted was sensible or nonsensical, and whether it was
ABOUT memetics, or was an attempt to propagate a particular set
of religiously based memes. Some people do not suffer fools and
covert religious dogmatists lightly; I have a problem suffering them
at all.
>
> 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 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 - 23:17:18 GMT