Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA18928 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 11 Sep 2001 21:53:46 +0100 Message-ID: <003f01c13b03$491f1900$8d88b2d1@teddace> From: "Dace" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> References: <3B8BA216.42CA25F@bioinf.man.ac.uk> <004101c130d4$01b31c80$d386b2d1@teddace> <001501c138a3$208b2860$b7a2bed4@default> Subject: Re: Clincher? Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:49:41 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> And in a sense Darwin was right in saying that there was no theory
> of evolution if the behavior of organisms isn 't its driving force, but
> where almost everyone sees this as it were an affect of natural
> selection, it would be better, IMO that is, to go one step back and
> to see what Lamarck has to say... besoins, what people need to sur-
> vive is important. And that, in the way I approach Lamarck, and I
> do read him in French, so no translate- errors can slip in, is IMO,
> still ' a reaction '.
> We ' react ' upon things which change, we ' react ' upon things which
> change along lines of memory and/ or lines of acquired traits.
> And we do that, not along lines of genetic change, but along lines of
> neurological change, along lines of memory, along lines of acquired
Sounds like you're trying to express evolution entirely in terms of memes.
This is a reversal of the effort to reduce memes (and culture in general)to
genes. I don't see how either side is reducible to the other. Genes yield
certain bodily and neurological characteristics. Memes yield certain
cultural preferences. We're like trains running on parallel tracks. The
question is whether both tracks are directed selfishly and blindly (Dawkins)
or if bodily and cultural traits follow from freely-chosen adaptations
(Sheldrake). Can we comprehend genes and memes atomistically, or do we need
the holistic context of the organism?
> Lamarck writes, " Or, cet ébranlement subit donne lieu à l' instant à une
> reaction qui, rapporteé à toutes parts au foyer commun,..." ( page 518,
> Philosophie Zoologique).
> And yes, to round this up, we have to see Lamarck, approach Lamarck
> as indeed as the origin of the genuine study of mind.
> IMO, Lamarck is and was always misread.
> Lamarckism has to be dealt with as it were psychology, not biology.
As Scott (tentatively) pointed out, it was Lamarck who plucked mentality out
of "metaphysical" abstraction and put it squarely in the domain of biology.
Minds are living, and therefore psychology is a subset of biology. But that
doesn't mean minds are reducible to brains (any more than brains are
reducible to minds). The point is that biology is the study of mind as
much as matter. Every organic structure is guided by natural memory. In
that sense, minds are integral to all levels of organic activity, not just
neurological. There's no possibility of understanding life without
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 : Tue Sep 11 2001 - 21:58:36 BST