Re: evolution

From: Wade Smith (
Date: Mon 09 Dec 2002 - 17:54:29 GMT

  • Next message: Virginia Bowen: "RE: Toward a new US-World dialogue"

    On Monday, December 9, 2002, at 12:04 PM, Grant Callaghan wrote:

    > I think we have to define memetic evolution as Lamarkian for
    > two reasons: 1) the "seed" of an idea is broadcast to everyone
    > withing seeing or hearing distance rather than selectively
    > passed to just one individual, which these days means everyone
    > watching TV, going to school, reading the same book or reading
    > this list, etc., etc. and 2) the meme which is picked up by
    > various members of the public does not produce a faithful
    > reproduction of the meme that was spread in the broadcast.
    > There is too much variation for it to be a Darwinian type
    > reproduction and evolution.

    Each performance is goal-oriented (aka lamarckian) (the performance itself, as far as the performer is concerned, is only a goal, but the performance itself is only half of the equation of culture), yes, but, each replication may only have the goal of replication itself, so, while lamarckianism might be a fair analyzation of some individuals' memetic processes, I don't think cultural evolution itself demands lamarckian mechanisms, at all.

    And, evolutionary mechanisms are not presumed to be individual's mechanisms, are they, regardless of the agency within evolution of individuals?

    - Wade

    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon 09 Dec 2002 - 17:56:11 GMT