Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA00187 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:36:00 GMT From: <AaronLynch@aol.com> Message-ID: <160.4e8f4e0.293cf4b2@aol.com> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:30:58 EST Subject: Re: Wilkins on the meme:engram relation To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 113 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
In a message dated 12/3/2001 2:01:22 AM Central Standard Time, Joe Dees
<joedees@addall.com> writes:
> even now, there is much debate as to what evolution generally is, with
some
> objections being more reasonable (gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium),
and
> some less (Lamarckianism, morphic resonance, etc.). This process is itself
> evolutionary, and every objection voiced adds to the evolution of our
> understanding, either by the inclusion of valid ideas or the exclusion of
> unsound ones. Why should we be perturbed by such an evolution, which was
> much more robust in the infancy of evolutionary understanding generally,
> taking place before our eyes and with our active participation, concerning
> memetics specifically? If we truly acknowledge the ubiquity of the
> evolutionary process in all things natural and cultural, we should nod
rather
> than flinch at its inevitable precession in this matter.
>
Hi Joe.
Interestingly, Darwinian evolution managed to be introduced over a period of
many years before the word "gene" was introduced. The term even followed
Mendel's work by decades. People who might otherwise have been distracted by
a quickly introduced neologism were given a chance to see that there was a
cogent theory even without the word.
In the case of quarks, a mathematically well-defined theoretical construct
was formed first, and then a neologism applied to it. The definition has been
generalized in well-described ways due to theoretical and empirical work
since then. This sort of evolution has been constrained by the methods of
science. Evolution is part of the process of science. Having evolution in
science is not a problem as long as it proceeds within certain constraints
that make science science.
In the case of "meme," Dawkins did not give an explicit definition, let alone
a mathematical definition or a definition ready to use in mathematical
analysis. He does not even call attention to works that have event diagrams,
such as Cloak's 1973. He gives some clarification in The Extended Phenotype
(1982), but then several years later in The Blind Watchmaker (1986) he
dramatically changes the word's meaning without even noting that he was
making a change, let alone explaining the change. People naturally concluded
that Dawkins needed help with the definition, and that seems to have brought
in a range of still further definitions and usages.
Murray Gell-Mann could have made a mess of the word "quark" if he either
wanted to or if he simply did not treat the matter seriously enough. Dawkins
could have made less of a mess of the word "meme," too. Even if he had
explicitly defined it in some way radically different from anything he has
said so far, I think all of us would have been better served by at least
knowing what role if any the word should play in our scientific
communications.
--Aaron Lynch
http://www.thoughtcontagion.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 : Mon Dec 03 2001 - 15:42:15 GMT