Message-Id: <v0310280eb2493bbff704@[194.109.148.6]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980923101534.00cd6584@popmail.mcs.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:55:43 +0200
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: Ton Maas <tonmaas@xs4all.nl>
Subject: Re: On Gatherer's behaviourist stance
>There is an inconsistency between the above 2 paragraphs. If a meme is a
>*behavior* (such as running a maze) then it is not something "stored" or
>"memorized." What is "stored" or "memorized" is not the behavior itself
>(e.g., an internal homunculus forever running the maze), but a neural
>condition that may *cause* the behavior at a later time.
>
>If I take a rat, temporarily shut down its brain, and use spinal electrodes
>to make it run a maze, then this is a case of the animal exhibiting the
>behavior without having a meme or a mnemon for that behavior. As I see it,
>the behavior alone is not eligible for consideration as a mnemon or a meme.
As Gregory Bateson showed, behaviorists have a hard time explaining why
rats _continue_ to stick their noses through shutters, "knowing" they stand
a fairly high chance of being administered a _very_ unpleasant dose of
electricity. How's that for a reward? His own solution is that instead of
_specific_ pleasures, the more abstract behavioral category of "curiosity"
is what gets rewarded. This resembles the dillemma of criminal justice:
what society wants to eliminate is crime (which is a class or pattern of
behaviors), but by definition all it can address is mere members of the
class - specific acts which can only be defined as "criminal" by referring
to the context in which they have taken place.
Ton
===============================================================
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