Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 19:10:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Valla Pishva <vpishva@emerald.tufts.edu>
Subject: Re: Do monkeys have memes
To: memetics list <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Mark Mills wrote:
>
> I agree that memes can have an impact on genetic reproduction. My
> complaint with the term 'recruited' related to the sense of 'agency' you
> deposit upon the meme construct. The gene or meme is not a little man
> (homunculi). I would rather describe genes and memes as emergent
> features of life processes. They are features without any ability to act
> with their own sense of identity.
But of course, since humans are made up of things with no agency, then
they don't have agency themselves in the strong sense. Otherwise, agency
can be seen as an emergent property of genes and memes in addition to
genes and memes being emergent features of life processes. As
for my anthropomorphisation (isnt this fairly equivalent to the homuncular
postulation?), I understand your qualms in representation, but, while I am
not a homunculist, I dont know if it is an approach devoid of utility. I
think that postulating emergent properties is as philosophically dangerous
an approach.
>
> Systems can respond to the environment and maintain equilibrium. Objects
> are inert. Genes and memes are objects (coded units of substrate). Of
> course, all objects are assemblies of systems so the best we can do is
> pick a statistical range of interest and do what seems useful with the
> assumption.
Again, I can turn it around by saying that all systems are assemblies of
objects, as long as I am not implying any evolutionary linearity in
occurence.
>
> Dawkins posits a sense of 'agency' upon genes and memes in the Selfish
> Gene, so you might ask who am I to disagree with the terminology. My
> reading of the book found Dawkins using homunculi as a rhetorical tool to
> puncture popular notions about the elevated role of 'human nature' and
> 'human agency.' More specifically, Dawkins was breaking down
> neo-Platonic notions about the existence of ideal 'forms' in nature, and
> the ability of humans to discern them.
>
> Dawkins' larger purpose was expansion of evolutionary epistemology, a
> view of knowledge that requires no ideals or unique ability to discern
> them. Flow and change are the 'static' elements of evolutionary systems.
This last part sounds like complexity theory to me.
>
>
> The 'selfish gene' with its homunculi is a useful intellectual trap. It
> gets all sorts of people to consider alternative epistimologies.
>
> Mark
>
Can you expand on this?
> ===============================================================
> 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