Re: Paper on chimp culture

Chris Lofting (
Fri, 18 Jun 1999 02:00:05 +1000

From: "Chris Lofting" <>
To: <>
Subject: Re: Paper on chimp culture
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 02:00:05 +1000

>Why then did only we started to use symbolic language? Because only we have
>innate grammar, as chomskyans claim? Given the above agreement between us
>(that also chimps are able of syntax and semantics with human symbols), I'd
>definitely say no. Because language is so advantageous that it can act as
>driving force for natural selection towards better language (as Pinker
>claims)? The latter is flawed reasoning, I think, and also - if it is so
>advantageous, then one wonders why it occurred only in one species? See
>manuscript for many reasons of why this is difficult.

The representation of data requires a structure that is robust and rich in
'meaning' and this requires a few applications of recursion before something
'useful' could emerge plus the ability to store data 'offline' and so we
dont have to 'repeat' history to know things.

It requires about 12 levels of dichotomisation (dimensions) to generate 4096
'states' that can capture the majority of events at the general level.
Particularisation is done where a 'discipline' is created (or a
hypothesis/theory) and a lexicon developed. This lexicon uses the SAME 4096
states but customised words/symbols to help differentiate one
discipline/theory etc from others; a 'whole' is a 'whole' regardless of
discipline but within a discipline it gets particularised; to learn a
discipline you have to learn the lexicon but the words point to invarient
patterns of emotion. It is these patterns that enable us to use analogy in
that it is the patterns that 'resonate' with meanings.



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)