|
naturalpreservation
Struth - You have fallen into a classic Dennett-type behaviour. He flowers ideas, mind, expressions, impressions, etc in Darwinian and evolutionary type language in the hope of confusing you away from two simple and lasting facts.(1) there has been no Darwinian and/or neo-Darwinian general theory of culture since 'Origin' 151 years ago.(2) In 1995 in 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' Dennett wrote that culture MUST have a Darwinian originIt's an emergence away/from evolutionary theory. Shame for Dan
naturalpreservation
Struth - Culture is a relative process, not a replicative one. Read The Extended Phenotype where Dawkins gives four cast iron reasons why memes are not like genes and that he hadn't done the reading on culture.We have a word for idea, it's 'idea'. Dawkins dogmatic attempt to cut & paste gene-centrism and drop in onto culture may well have seduced you but it holds little water for the critical of thought when it comes to culture.151 years and no (neo) Darwinian general theory of culture.
naturalpreservation
Struth - Actually he would have a problem, because memetics is part of what he, Dawkins and Blackmore refer to as 'Universal Darwinism'. For years (as is still the case) evolutionary theory rallied against Lamarck's inheritance of acquired characteristics and when it begins to emerge that culture is as Gould said "the Lamarckian juggernaut" try and claim that Darwinism (blind watchmaker) and Lamarck (learning, experience and in terms of humans 'foresighted') are the same.Memetics is a fiction.
itsStruth
The point at which replication of an idea actually occurs is not clear but is clearly not when transmitted between minds. It can be said that every time an idea is recalled it is reproducing (copied - maybe with errors - out of memory into another form of memory and cross polinated by other ideas perhaps associated with the memory, with other concepts in the mind or with occurances currently in the senses or whatever. This seems to be an entirely semantic argument.
itsStruth
Dennett would have no problem with describing memetic evolution as Lamarkian. Really, when it comes to memetic (cultural) evolution the distinction between it and Darwinian processes dissolves. Since the purpose driving the Lamarkian evolution is a meme in itself it can simply be seen as replication between two memes.
novemberwh1skey
I sit on the fence watching you on the platform disparaging everyone else as god deluded/
naturalpreservation
bc -The most distinguising feature to you might be its teleological focus but for mainstream biology Lamarck means one thing primarily 'the inheritance of acquired characteristics'Lamarck dealt with these biologically but it still applies through social learning and cultural change. This is why Gould's comment that culture as "the Lamarckian juggernaut" still holds waterDawkins (you tube 'The Purpose of Purpose') now lectures on this "new evolution" a millions times faster than the Darwinian
naturalpreservation
bc - Learning, especially learning from experience is not a Darwinian process, it is a Lamarckian one. In the last 151 years evolutionary theory has failed consistently through its numerous attempts to Darwinise culture. Memetics not only has no journal, but no on-line journal, a poor excuse for cut & paste pseudo-science.For those of you who think that Dennett is some pantheon of science, think again. For him it's all Darwin, even when it cleary isn't. Short on culture, short on religion.
naturalpreservation
bc - Darwinism is synonymous with the blind watchmaker of evolution, with storage (recipe) in the gene. Culture is more Lamarckian, in that it is sighted, important changes do occur within and between generation to generation and change can be directed by humans. Even Dawkins concedes the 'intelligent design' of humans is quite different from the blind watchmaker.
naturalpreservation
If the USA wanted this dogmatic for President that would be a new career low for political democracy and a sign that popular science was indeed more pop than scientific.Spectacularly wrong on culture for decades by pushing his Universal Darwinism agenda you can't complain about religious dogmatics and then put a neo-Darwinian dogmatic on a pedestal.And if anyone thinks that Charles Darwin would have anything to do with the 'agenda' that Dennett and Dawkins have been locked into, think again. |