Right........
I'm trying to get the hang of this because, of course I've been aware of
Richard Dawkins' work for many years, but...I can't say I've pursued the
notion of "memetics"; I need to grasp this.
I sort of thought that it was generaly agreed that, whilst we might have
innate propensities toward certain types of ability and behaviour, without
the appropriate environmental circumstances, such potential behaviours are
unlikely to be properly realised. So walking (on hind legs) is clearly
something which we have evolved considerable potential for, but in each
individual, that potential cannot be realised without the appropriate
opportunities.
For insatance, I have a Collie dog; these dogs have quite distinctive
behaviours associated specifically with the breed (generally), and more
significantly, combinations of behaviours which are highly specific to a
description of the breed (e.g. 'rounding up'). But... I've noticed, even at
12 weeks, (the current age of this dog), that some of the 'collie-like'
behaviours don't instantiate UNTIL learning by observation of examples has
taken place. So my dog 'picks up' certain skills from observing other dogs,
most especially other collie dogs. I have reason to tend to the view
especially from conversations with a noted canine behaviourist) that, in
the absence of such teaching examples, such behaviour might NEVER be
evidenced. And this is generally the view of farmers using such dogs, such
that it is assumed that one really must teach a new dog by working it
alongside an old one, for a period.
As importantly, it is quite categorically shown that Humans (the most
behaviourally flexible animals we know) may FAIL to develop certain,
supposedly 'innate' skills, in the absence of apprpriate infromation-stimuli
at the proper developmenta stage. So, spatial vision does not 'properly'
develop EVER in an individual if vision is not available at certain, early
age-ranges. (I'm not sure how useful references are here, but if any membesr
of the list need academic refs. on this point, drop me a line).
Similarly, as a personal observation, I've noticed that chickens tend to
'inherit' habits/skills from their peer group, and the reciprocal: certain
'chicken-like' behaviours (e.g. 'perching') can fail to develop in the
absence of examples AT THE RIGHT TIME; (I have some hens, also). The point
of the hen-examples is that, once a skill/habit has been learned, hens don't
lose it easily, even when necessary, and the corollary, once a skill has NOT
been learned, it is excedingly unlikely to be acquired in later
developmental stages. Now, this last doesn't qualify as scientific, in the
sense that it is not the product of proper experimental method. It only
stands as personal observation. But, personally, I'm completely happy with
the observations as offered.
Now, my question is this: is "memetics" a subject which is (at least
potentially) one which can be approached 'scientifically'? - regular readers
of this list will know what I mean - I don't mean that science is the only
allowable perspective, but to avoid undue 'woolly-ness' and wild speculation
(a la "X-Files"), it doesn't hurt to give it a quick once-over with the old
logic-scanner to see if it's a trojan horse. And its certainly necessary in
order to achieve congruence with other, more established disciplines.
Forgive my ignorance in this area, and I look forward to enlightenment. (in
fact, I'm never so interested as when faced with unexplored territory!)
regards,
ppl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: 07 October 2000 19:55
Subject: Re: MD Re: Walking is a social skill/ introduction- post
>
> Peter you wrote,
>
>
> > > I must admit, I'm slightly confused; (it's late and I'm tired); are
we
> > taking the fact that the boy couldn't walk until he witnessed examples
of
> > walking as proof that walking isn't innate? - but has anyone made such a
> > supposition? (that walking is 'innate' as against 'acquired'). I'm not
> sure
> > that walking is considered to be qualitatively different to other, more
> > recent skills such as reading, or even driving, (or, for that matter,
> > talking), etc.....?
> > Am I missing something? - I look forard to debate.
>
> << No, we don 't take the fact that the boy could not walk until he
witnes-
> ses examples of walking.
> I am just saying that the boy could not walk (human- like that is) until
he
> witnessed examples of Human walking.
> " Walking " is an innate evolutionary process. All animals, like spiders,
> lions, giraffes, millepedes, monkeys,...are walking in some way_they
> walk because of instinctive quality lines.
> The tarzan boy witnessed only one form, and it was the monkey- model.
> His brain, his Quality Events had no need to switch on the human- kind.
> Remerber, a baby- child crawls on all four limbs, until it is old and '
> wise '
> enough to get up on two_that due to learning- processes of trail and
error.
>
> Tarzan boy 's instincts of survival had only one thing in mind,
> " stay down " and you will live, " stand up " and you will be killed in a
> battle with the strongest monkey.
> You could say the real Tarzan made it to the top of his group because
> he was then the tallest and probably the strongest...!?
>
> Like walking, reading or even driving are achieved by us after immense
> training, by trail and error.
> Talking could be considered as in the same line of walking, no model to
> use the social variant, Tarzan boy would not speak any human words,
> he will only use monkey verbals and cries.
> Remerber, children imitate and by doing so they switch on pre- models
> of talking,
> That is, as a human child Tarzan boy had already inherited human dispo-
> sitions about talking, to start the whole of the process up, an example
> had to be shown, a new neural connection in order to begin talking the
> human way could not be made because an Quality Event did not took place.
>
> In a memetic view, memes are driven to replicate themselves, but only
> along given memetic lineages, which those memes did set up, far back
> in history in the first place. In memetic sense, the strongest lineage in
> order to replicate themselves will win, and in the case of Tarzan- boy
> the lineage of Monkey- talking was the best in order to let survive the
> human host (the boy) and to let survive the memes.
> When the boy was found and brought back into a human society, the
> memes or the Quality Events of human talking saw their chance to pro-
> pagate themselves further throughout a wider area, and they did see their
> chance in taking up human language.
>
> And I don 't think you missed anything, please discuss...
>
> Many regards,
>
> Kenneth
>
> ( I am, because we are)
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:48 BST