From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Dawkins' Mutation Test for Replicators
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 03:03:14 +1000
-----Original Message-----
From: Wade T.Smith <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Date: Sunday, 29 August 1999 1:36
Subject: Re: Dawkins' Mutation Test for Replicators
>>you left out the bit about the monkeys on nearby islands 'suddenly'
adopting
>>the same behaviour without any perceived contact with the original group.
>
>It is my considered opinion, and I am not alone, that this whole
>monkey-washing-fruit thing is _not_ evidence, and in fact has been shown
>to be fraudulent.
>
>It is _not_ evidence of memetic replication in non-humans at all.
>
>I remain unconvinced, not that I'm one of the ones that need convincing,
>about memetic activity among non-humans at all. And this unfortunate
>'evidence'- since it has been proven false, ain't going to help the cause
>of those who want to show such behavior.
>
>Not in the least. In fact, it hurts.
>
>http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/go/btcarrol/skeptic/monkey.html
>
Wade,
Thank you for the link, however....
If you bothered to read and reflect on the rest of my email I emphasised the
point that our method of analysis has this '100th monkey' concept as a
property and as such we will see this behaviour at the micro and the macro
levels regardless of 'reality'. With this in mind note that this property
will affect our perceptions of reality with some strongly believing that the
100 monkey phenomenon is 'for real'.
The overall emphasis is not '100 monkeys' but more on what I call the
continuum effect (CE). For example, in identical twins there is a genetic
correlation of 100%. There is ample 'evidence' that there is something going
on re communications between twins, especially from studies on twins
seperated at birth and so removing any 'interference' caused by social
pressures for each twin to be different from the other.
In the 100 monkey link so the 'infection' spread through the gene pool from
an individual to immediate family and then to the whole group etc etc and
then seemed to 'jump' to genetically linked groups (but with a lower
correlation) on the other islands.
This 'infection' is best described using the concept of resonance which is
tied to patterns of emotion and these patterns are best expressed using the
wave metaphor. Using this metaphor so distance etc becomes meaningless.
This wave-particle interaction (wave=group, particle = individual) is a
property of our methods of analysis and since all meaning we can derive from
'out there' is dependent on the method of analysis, and since the most
commonest method for humans is the use of recursive dichotomisations, so we
will always 'see' the 100 monkey effect. (BTW the recursive application of
ANY dichotomy will generate patterns that imply wave interference at work
regardless of what the dichotomy elements are and the scale of analysis.)
If we zoom down to the level of the microcosm so we see the same effect in
the now well documented (and experimentally 'confirmed') double slit
experiments relating to the EPR paradox where CORRELATED particles seem to
influence each other regardless of distance.
I can demonstrate that these experiments, all based on the use of recursive
dichotomisations, could be illusions in that their structure is such that
they force the emergence of implied wave interference patterns due to the
use of dichotomies. However, if we take this into consideration and STILL
find 'influences' at a distance (whether spatial or genetic) then the 100
monkeys concept may have some foundations!
best,
Chris.
===============================================================
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