Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA10636 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:17:39 GMT X-Originating-IP: [188.8.131.52] User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.3 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:09:37 +0000 Subject: Re: Cultural traits and vulnerability to memes From: Steve Drew <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> Message-ID: <B8B6B5A2.31Ffirstname.lastname@example.org> In-Reply-To: <200203141737.RAA10212@alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk> Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2002 22:11:42.0005 (UTC) FILETIME=[3870E650:01C1CBA5] Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:41:37 +0100
> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
> Subject: Re: Cultural traits and vulnerability to memes
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steve Drew <email@example.com>
>> I think what you may mean is that we do instinctive things, unless we
>> otherwise. A choice between reacting and acting the difference being the
>> thinking on the one hand, and thinking on the other.
> Hi Steve, Wade,
> I ain 't gonna interfere with the discussion you both have, just an aside
> of my part,
> IMO, we don 't have much time to think ( in the exact meaning of the
> word) in certain situations. If we had the time_ to- think- that- car- is-
> running- fast- I- must- hurry- myself-_ we would have died !
> IMO, still further, our brain/ mind ' reacts ' all the time. The time- frame
> needed to think, like I said, in the real sense of the wod, is too slim.
> My major scepsis applying Darwinism for the working, not its construc-
> tion, of the brain, lies there. I don 't deny that it seems that the fittest
> idea/ thought/ habit or trait survived the struggle inside our head, but
> the time- frame for doing that don 't end up.
I agree we do react a lot of the time. Another feature that aids the
reaction time is by the construction of stereotypes which are cognitive
shortcuts in decision making.
> And yes you can argue that evolution supported the speed by which
> the brain works in a Darwinian way, but still IMO, it doesn 't seem to
> end right up. There is ( still) a gap. The argument that Darwinism would
> provide sufficient rationales for any question raised keeps poppin ' up
> and IMO always in the wrong places.
> The idea is that ideas, formed NOT by Darwinism, would survive to
> be counted as beneficial traits of Darwinian selection. Investigators
> would see those as beneficial outcomes of natural selection where in
> fact ( Lamarckian) (re)actions would hold(s) the key(s).
> I repeat, the time- frame needed to pick/ choose a certain solution
> for/ to a particular stressor/ attraction ( inside the brain) in order to
> the organism survive can 't be explained by a Darwinian- concept_
> if we take the Darwinian evolutionary process for granted, that is_
> trial and error over a certain amount of time.
> Time you don 't have !
Yes it can. If your running on 'auto', then your reactions are those that
are hard wired, or constitute a repetitive learned behaviour. How you behave
in the environment as a result of these 'auto' behaviours is no different to
any other creature. It is the thinking that separate us from animals. But
even then our active decisions are ultimately Darwinian in character.
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 14 2002 - 22:28:36 GMT