Re: DS syndrome

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Fri 23 May 2003 - 00:21:59 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: performance"

    >From: "Ray Recchia" <>
    >Subject: Re: DS syndrome
    >Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 14:23:21 -0400
    > >
    > > > They also *may* have a primitive subsonic language. But is it an
    > > > instinctual collection of calls, like dolphinsong, which never
    > > changes, or
    > > > can creativity be involved, like in whalesong, which does change?
    > > That
    > > > decides whether or not we may be able to consider it to be a
    > > language;
    > > > for now, the jury is still out.
    > >
    > > Are you claiming no language, no memes?
    > >
    > > Mentalist memetics would seem to claim the humans have a class of
    > > neural
    > > entities that other animals do not, namely memes. Neuroscientists
    > > haven't
    > > found any such things. They know we've got more neural tissue than
    > > apes,
    > > etc. But physically, the tissue is pretty much same old stuff. There
    > > are
    > > not little possible-meme-thingys in our heads that are missing in cats,
    > > dogs
    > > and apes. Or is it that animal brains are just stuffed full of memes
    > > but
    > > there's little or no way for them to get out?
    > >
    > > I'm embarrassed to admit that this line of thinking didn't occur to me
    > > when
    > > I picked Aunger's neuromemetics apart.
    > >
    > > --
    > >
    > > William L. Benzon
    > > 708 Jersey Avenue, Apt. 2A
    > > Jersey City, NJ 07302
    > > 201 217-1010
    > >
    > > "You won't get a wild heroic ride to heaven on pretty little
    > > sounds."--George Ives
    >I'm a mentalist memetics and I claim that animals do have memes. There
    >is a difference though between passing memes by observing behavior and
    >passing them through referential symbolism. Animals form complex
    >strategies and are capable of using abstractions like numbers and colors,
    >but do not engage in the passage of complex referential symbols like
    >humans do. I'm not going to jump into this messy argument again, but I
    >think that a performance based meme runs into problems when dealing with
    >complex referential symbols because those symbols can expressed in so
    >many different forms. Those forms can only be connected by recognizing
    >the common mental constructs behind them.
    >Incidently, although I've said so many times before, primate studies
    >absolutely rely on recognizing common internal thinking processes we
    >share with the apes. This was Goodall's great breakthrough. She
    >described her subjects as getting angry, feeling love, and having many
    >other emotions that humans possess. All of those things are internal
    >states that we can recognize in others sharing a common background with
    >ourselves. Hunger is a real thing inside our heads that can be
    >correlated to a feedback response from the neurons in our stomachs. We
    >didn't need to know about the neurons to know about hunger though. We
    >recognized it in ourselves and in others. And we still don't know how
    >our conscious mind truly comes to recognize hunger in itself. Our mutual
    >consciousness of our own ideas and thoughts is an internal awareness that
    >we can be as sure of as hunger. Our ability to recognize a similarity
    >between internal states is the absolute basis which language requires to
    I'm not adverse to thinking in terms of the commonalities we might sahre with the other apes (or other *chimps* as I'm wont to assert). I may be taking an agnostic stance on memes, but I'd be open to behvioral (and cultural?) issues that link us with the other chimps. I vaguely recall a thousand or so posts ago somebody posting about studies that suggested more genetic separation between us and the other chimps. Recently, if the news reports (versus the actual reaerch articles which I haven't even read an abtract for) are accurate, some workers have genetically closed the gap betwwen humans and the other hopeful members of genus *Homo* which are still extant:

    I'm sure this debate will rage on, as to how closely we may be related to chimps. If it is eventually agreed that this putative genetic closeness should result in taxonomic restructuring, I wonder what issues will rise to the firefront. Of course we know creationists are going to whine sice humans will be shown not to be so special after all, sharing so much genetic background with chimps that the latter are moved into our genus (not just our family). Forget them though, for their ojections don't really matter. What about those in the scientific community with reservations. Granted that one could argue that human achievements and cultural developments may be enough to warrant seperation. Would the anthropologists argue this point? What about the implications for the naming (or should I say REnaming) of the various human and protohuman fossils? Would that possible can of worms be enough to kep som fighting for taxonomic separation no matter what the DNA says?
    >Like I said we've really gone over this too many times. It just gets too
    >damned old. I can understand how a molecular biologist like Derek
    >Gatherer could be unhappy with the uncertainty associated with
    >recognizing similar mental states but IMHO the whole argument is a waste
    >of time.

    _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

    =============================================================== 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 : Fri 23 May 2003 - 00:28:28 GMT