Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA13051 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:55:13 GMT Subject: Re: Definition, Please Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:49:38 -0500 x-sender: firstname.lastname@example.org x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" <email@example.com> To: "memetics list" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-ID: <20011126135012.AAA8991@email@example.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On 11/26/01 07:25, Ray Recchia said this-
>Are the branches memes? If not, why not?
Were these chimps observed without prior human contact? I have to know
about the protocol of this observation to give it credence.
Likewise for the other example. But, I won't go out on a limb and say
there _aren't_ memes there- I'm just not convinced we have an unbiased or
untampered set of observations- or just like the hundreth monkey- a hoax.
(Or Sheldrake, but that's another issue... or is it?)
>No artifacts are required to produce a 'B' that is capable of producing a
>more fit 'C'.
But, hey- that ain't true with memes. Or memetics. Or culture. Artifacts
are absolutely required to make a better B.
I ain't disagreeing with -
>acquisition of characteristics. Reproduction, variation, and selection
>producing greater fitness. Pattern at state 'A' produces offspring, those
>offspring are selected for and a state 'B' survives and reproduces.
- at all. But I am asking that the mechanism of memetic offspring be
explained, and the only way _I_ can do it, and involve memes _at all_
(rather than throw them out entirely), is have them be cultural
artifacts, and only cultural artifacts, and to involve some analog of
sexual contact, since I really don't think there is any evidence to show
sheer mutation as the only operative, as Joe pointed out.
And, I did try to choose the inside meme, and the shared meme, as a
mechanism, but, the inside meme depends way too much on things we simply
don't know yet- that region between perception and behavior is just too
unknown. And the shared meme requires a leap into illogic that remains
impossible for me.
If cultural evolution is a fact at all (and not just our innate responses
to complexly changing environments coupled with our pattern-prompted
answers), then why not look at _what is produced_?- the artifacts of
culture are ready and able to be studied and analyzed. If you want
pigeonholing, then, yes, this makes memetics a branch of anthropology-
but, I too would prefer that memetics occupy that consiliating realm
between art and science. But then, in true consilience, that's where
everything should be.
But, before I go, let me know if you _really_, _really_, meant the
>earth has the chemicals and energies sufficient to produce a human without
>any evolutionary process occurring at all
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 : Mon Nov 26 2001 - 14:01:09 GMT