ROGER FINALLY RESPONDS TO DAN ON MEMES
To Dan, Kenneth, Bo, Jonathan, etc
Thanks for the questions Dan. Sorry it took so long to respond, I was out in
New England on travel.
My old quotes start witha a >.
>Like genes, and unlike animal societies, memes are subject to selection,
>variation and duplication. Therefore, once we developed the ability to
>imitate, memetic evolution became inevitable. The rapid evolution of man
and
>society over the last million years or so can be explained via the
>positive-sum co-evolution of genes and memes.
DAN:
First, evolution must certainly be working on animal society memes too
for otherwise how would such complex relationships evolve?
ROG:
Great question. And yes, biological --genetic -- evolution affects animal
societies. But to use our terminology, it does not operate as dynamically on
the social level, and it doesn't have good latching mechanisms....let me
explain.
The genetic pattern can evolve behaviors that are mutually beneficial to the
individual and to other individuals of the same species (or other species,
but lets not go there). The most elemental social unit would be a family,
where parents take care of their offspring. The parent/child interaction
pattern is mutually beneficial for the genes and this most basic of social
units. Beyond that level, there is the concept of kin selection, where
siblings and close genetic relatives benefit from interacting/cooperating.
What is good for the individual or their relative is statistically good for
the gene -- and at a certain level, that is what evolution is -- statistics
(and #s are of course pure mathematical expressions of VALUE). Even further,
unrelated individuals can interact socially as long as the interaction is
mutually beneficial. Win/win interaction between unrelated individuals can
develop genetically. As you imply, it does.
The "problem' that biologists encounter with genetic social evolution is that
genetic behaviors will not be selected or reproduced if the effect of the
social behavior benefits the society at the expense of the individual and
their genes. This is complicated by the 'free rider' or 'cheater' problem
that arises in social environments. In a social environment where individuals
cooperate by sharing food or risking death by warning of enemies, or by
grooming each other, etc, etc, there is a genetic incentive to cheat. Eat
what they share, but keep your own food to yourself. Let them groom you or
warn you, but......
Cheating and free riding are the genetic strategies most advantageous to
individuals and their genes. They will live the longest and reproduce the
most, and their behavioral genes will multiply to the detriment of the larger
social pattern.
Further complicating this is that there is no social latching mechanism --
there is no statistical pressure selecting and preserving better societies
other than the basic genetic mechanism. Putting all this together, animal
societies tend to be:
a) closely related (insects, prides and families), or
b) fairly small bands that can control exploitation (Robert Axelrod
popularized the genetically sound strategy called Tit-for-Tat),or
c) smart to control exploiters (dolphins, bats or primates), or
d) a combo of the above
Complex social relationships can evolve via the evolution of the individuals,
but there are dynamic and static latching limitations.
DAN:
It would seem
animal memes are also subject to selection, variation and duplication
although not to the complex extent of human society.
ROG:
I think I agree. To the extent that advanced primates can copy tool
use I would agree that there is limited memetic transference. Beyond
this level though, most animals can only learn what is innate. They can
learn what to be afraid of, or what to stalk, but they are terrible at
learning non-innate behavior. Blackmore has a lot of interesting reserch on
the common misconceptions we have on animal learning. I could go on to
further explain this point, but would suggest you go directly to some memetic
sites that Blackmore offers on the internet.
I would also offer that the real breakthroughs for humans are speech,
followed by writing and printing. Writing didn't become widespread until
5,000 years or so ago -- the beginning of an explosive era for social
advance. And we know how printing led to another creative and dynamic era.
Speech, writing and printing are exceptional latching and transmission
mechanisms of dynamic advances.
DAN:
Second, while
memetic evolution may tend to spontaneously occur the ability to imitate
would seem somehow to be itself a meme, arising as a conflict between
inorganic and biological patterns of value. After all, the animal
kingdom is filled with the ability to imitate environmental
surroundings.
ROG:
Mimic behavior can certainly be selected for, but I believe that would be via
a genetic mechanism. I suppose if chameleons learned how to mimic by
observing and copying others mimicry it could be memetic.
DAN:
Third, the rapid evolution of man cannot be explained by
the positive sum co evolution of genes and memes without mentioning
Dynamic Quality.
ROG:
Agreed. Dynamic Quality is the undefined betterness.
>
> Memes allow social patterns to compete, to evolve and to become
significantly
> more dynamic than anything in the animal world.
DAN:
I can't help but notice this seems to celebrate human-centricity rather
than avoid it. In order to really begin forming any type of
understanding with Universe we must look for universal principles, not
human centered principles.
ROG:
You remind me (fondly) of Ken here. Memes are the evolutionary unit of human
society.
In order to begin forming understanding, I would offer that we look for the
best model at the given level. Social/intellectual level examples in Lila
are fairly human centered. No conflict here.
DAN:
Most assuredly any entomologist will tell you
insect societies rival our own Dynamically and anyone who has lived with
animals for an extended period will tell you their social patterns are
every bit as Dynamic as our own; what lacks in both cases is static
quality complexity.
ROG:
Certainly closely related insect societies (i think they are usually
siblings) are complex and responsive, but they are certainly less dynamic
than human societies. Their evolutionary unit is genetic. Their options are
pretty limited by their genetically developed responses. They don't respond
anywhere as flexibly as human societies. Certainly they are very dynamic, but
as dynamic as ours?
But an argument on this point would probably be fruitless. I agree that
insect societies can get extremely dynamic because the fate of the genes and
the fate of the society as a whole are so closely intertwined. Genes works
well at explaining insects, memes are needed to explain Hollywood.
>Memes are imitatable (duplicatable/replicatable) social/intellectual
>patterns of interaction.
DAN:
Could you explain how patterns of
interaction are different than patterns of value and how they fit into
the MOQ?
ROG:
They are patterns of value. No difference. The MOQ is an evolutionary
metaphysics. Memes is the 2nd evolutionary unit. No conflict.
>Memetic theory, as with most dualistic western intellectual patterns, can
>offer great insights to the MOQ, but only if we filter out the SOM Platypi
>and replace it with Values and patterns of values.
DAN:
Well, it seems to me the MOQ would offer greater insight into memetic
theory rather than the other way around then, no?
ROG:
Very true. I guess this is up to Kenneth to judge though.
Roger
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
