Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA11779 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 11 Jan 2002 22:58:25 GMT To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Message-Id: <AA-5BF9EDC470EC454D39178A4DE0616A2D-ZZ@homebase1.prodigy.net> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 17:54:23 -0500 From: "Philip Jonkers" <PHILIPJONKERS@prodigy.net> Subject: RE: playing at suicide Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
It's good to hear that there's another theorist on the
list. I
like the idea of tools being memes, it's the original
purpose of
memes: tools to increase survival prospects and
chances. The
converse however is not always so I contend. I will
explain why in
a more in depth analysis of your letter to Susan
Blackmore
submitting your theory.
>>So where do we read about your theory, Grant?
>>
>> Luisa
>>
Grant:
>I was just reading The Meme Machine and I was struck
by an idea that may
>make the field of memetics more like a science. The
key to my idea is to
>give up the selfish meme concept. There is
selfishness, all right,but it
>is not the meme that is selfish. In that sense a
meme is not much like a gene.
Selfishness of course doesn't really apply to non-
living abstract
entities or small clumps of molecules. The term
selfishness has
meaning only to living animated beings. Terms like the
selfish
meme/gene doesn't apply to the meme/gene itself but to
the
behavior the meme/gene helps bring forth in such a way
that the
occurrence of that meme/gene increases at the expense
of other
genes/memes. In the evolutionary end only those
genes/memes
yielding greedy and selfish behavior will prevail over
those that
produce less ambitious and vital behavior. It's a law
of nature,
survival of the fittest again and again. The term
Selfish
Meme/Gene is just a catchy short-hand name for
memetic/genetic
selfish induced behavior. That's what Dawkins and
Blackmore meant
by that slogan.
>Memes, in my estimation, are a set of tools we use to
accomplish certain
>objectives in our daily lives. Each tool is a meme
and vice versa. That
>simplifies the task of identifying a meme and
categorizing it. I ask you
>to hear me out and respond to the following
challenge: give me an exampl
>of a meme that is NOT a tool.
Well allow me on behalf of Susan, that shouldn't be so
hard when
you admit the following logical argument. Suppose all
memes were
tools, what remains as tool-substrate then? Tools have
to apply to
something, but what according to your theory. It's
like trying to
build a house with all hammers and no nails. From this
logical
premise it should be easy to find examples of non-tool
memes:
music-plays, fashion/catch phrases, fashion, etc....
If you insist
to stick to your infinitely broad definition of the
concept of a
tool, the meaning of tool-substrate becomes irrelevant.
Like you I like to consider the utility of memes as
crucial for
adoption and propagation. However I like to think in
more general
terms of fitness increasing potential which has many
similarities
with your interpretation. To me to regard all memes as
being tools
is inappropriate.
>The primary difference, in my mind, between humans
and other animals is our
>ability to use tools. Not that we can and they can.
But a human can
>juggle over a million tools in his mind at one time.
It is the extent of
>our tool-using that sets us apart. Humans can use
anything as a tool. In
>fact, humans can use nothing as a tool. The concept
of zero is one of the
>most useful ideas in mathematics it revolutionized
the subject in Roman
>times. Zero, nothing, no thing.
True, we are the unrivaled tool-making species par
excellence but
that's nothing new.
>The average college student commands over 20,000
words in his vocabulary.
>But he is also able to make use of such concepts,
memes, tools as the amount
>of silence between words to convey meaning.
Unless one suffers from some sort of speech impediment
this is
simply not true. You don't pause in between words, you
as a
linguist should know this perfectly well. I refer to
Steven
Pinker. You only pause to catch breath or to think
about the next
sentence construction.
>That is silence, no sound,
>nothing. We also use every possible contortion of
our faces to convey=20
>information. A wink, a smile, a frown, a drooping
eyelid, a wrinkled nose
>or brow, the angle of ones head, and more are used as
tools to convey
>information of one kind or another. The term poker
face even defines the
>use of that expression. It is an attempt to keep
ones face blank during
>some transaction in order to gain an advantage. Of
course, the blank fac
>e
>also conveys information because everybody knows what
the user is using it
>for. But think of it. The lack of expression is
being used as a tool to
>both hide information and to convey it at the same
time.
This is not true either. It's all about changes that
reveal
information. Tell me Grant how on earth can you extract
information from somebody who maintains a poker face
throughout
the *entire* game? You can't, this is precisely where
the use of
poker-faces lie. It's fullproof if consistently
maintained and
this is precisely what these guys do...
>My degree was in Linguistics. In my studies I came
to the conclusion that
>we learn the linguistic tools we use to communicate
one at a time, starting
>with ma and ba in our earliest attempts to influence
the behavior of our
>parents. The child makes a great number of random
sounds in the first year
>or childhood and discovers that some of them elicit a
reaction. Over time,
>those that are rewarded by parental or other
attention are retained and
>enlarged upon, while those that get no response are
dropped. This is the
>first instance of the evolution of language in a
child. Useful sounds are
>kept in the vocabulary and the useless ones discarded.
>
>This is the key to my concept. It is not the memes
that are selfish
>it is
>the person, the brain, the individual who is using
them. We choose the
>tools/memes from the store that is available to us
based on how well they do
>the job we are trying to accomplish with them. The
older we grow, the more
>we have available. We see someone use a tool to get
something and we try to
>use it. If it doesn't work as we expected, we listen
again and try again until we can use it, or we discard
it. There is a limit to the number of
>sounds we can handle in daily conversation, for
example, so we settle on those that are most
useful to us and drop the rest.
Of course it is *we* who are selfish, but this is a
hardly earth-scattering conclusion.
Philip.
===============================================================
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 : Fri Jan 11 2002 - 23:05:19 GMT