Re: [asa] Darwin only biological evolution? (can anything exist without evolution?)

Hi Bernie,

I think it's the seeming obviousness of the role of intelligent agency which is the problem - frankly, when Dawkins introduced the concept of the meme he was wanting to argue that certain ideas (particularly religious ideas) persist DESPITE the role normally played by intelligence in human thinking.

I realize you're not advocating precisely the same thing as Dawkins, but for better or worse the term "meme" is generally understood to refer to a bit of cultural information which replicates WITHOUT the "host" being conscious of that replication and, therefore, without the "host" engaging in any intelligent reflection. Note that the use of the term "host" is quite deliberate as it's normally argued that memes are a virus which "infects" the mind in the same way a virus infects the body.

Now, again, I acknowledge your not suggesting that Beethoven's Ninth is simply a random mutation which got lucky in the jungle of early 19th century Vienesse concert halls - BUT if one says Beethoven's Ninth is a "meme" of the the same sort Dawkins advocated, then this is EXACTLY what is intended and the role of intelligent agency is certainly NOT obvious.

As a tangential but certainly related remark: It's true to say that brains THINK - but we're way past the enlightenment delusion that brains always think logically, rationally, and/or consciously. The fact is that a very great deal of what goes on in the grey matter is illogical, irrational, and unconscious. Heck, sometimes it's even downright pathological. One elderly lady in my congregation is starting to show serious signs of age-related degenerative mental illness - really saddening stuff - which really drives home to me that the while the claim "brains think" is true, one should be wary of what one is saying about HOW they think. Applying that to Dawkins' notion of the meme, I don't think he's trying to say that religious believers don't think, but he is trying to infer that our thinking is sub-standard, that somehow religious believers don't "think" in the proper sense of the term. Again, I realize you're not saying precisely the same thing as Dawkins, but it might be
 
worth asking whether you haven't presumed something about what you mean by "brains think" and whether you're able to differentiate between the genius of somebody who can write music like Beethoven or the insanity of somebody who just thinks they can.

Blessings,
Murray

Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> Pastor Murray said:
> "... any talk of "meme evolution" MUST carry with it a clear emphasis that it IS distinct from biological evolution AND that it necessarily involves intelligent agency."
>
> It seems so obvious that meme generation depends on intelligent agency- that's what the brain does- it THINKS. Without the brain- there's no meme- no intelligence. Brains were made to think- that is a major function of the organ.
>
> Pastor Murray says:
> "In the end analysis you're now simply arguing what Greg Arago has been saying for years - that "evolution" as an broad umbrella term means nothing more specific than simply "change over time,""
>
> I'd say "change over time," as well as from "simple to complex." The change over time is also step-wise... just like kids go to grade school before high-school before college (common sense, as well as highlighting the education-training meme).
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Murray Hogg
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 4:46 PM
> To: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] Darwin only biological evolution? (can anything exist without evolution?)
>
> Hi Bernie,
>
> In the end analysis you're now simply arguing what Greg Arago has been saying for years - that "evolution" as an broad umbrella term means nothing more specific than simply "change over time," that not all "change over time" is of the same sort, and that we need to qualify the use of "evolution" in order to make clear what sort of "change over time" we're talking about.
>
> And this brings us back full-circle to David O.'s point that any disagreement on the matter is a matter of semantics (but not "merely" a matter of semantics). And as long as we keep in mind that the mechanisms of "biological evolution" don't apply to what you're calling "meme evolution" (which was Iain's point) then I don't see any cause for strident objection.
>
> I would, however, reiterate the point which I made in response to David O.: "evolution" has become such a culturally significant term that is critical that any talk of "meme evolution" MUST carry with it a clear emphasis that it IS distinct from biological evolution AND that it necessarily involves intelligent agency. Failing such distinctions one risks falling into the error of thinking that evolution of ideas happens in exactly the same way as evolution of bacteria and that, therefore, intelligent agency is necessarily EXCLUDED.
>
> What you may have missed in my response to David O., by the way, was that I was AGREEING with you but merely extending the point to indicate the cultural significance of the terminology in question. I wasn't claiming you hadn't made the point, I was suggesting that the point is so important that it cannot be over-emphasized.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray
>
> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>> Pastor Murray- you also said later:
>> " The question to be asked in respects of the suggestion that Beethoven's Ninth "evolved" is "what accounts for the difference?" If the answer is "intelligent agency" then I think Iain can rest his case - Beethoven's Ninth simply DIDN'T "evolve" through the same sort of processes involved in biological evolution."
>>
>> I don't see how Ian can "rest his case" because biological evolution doesn't apply to meme evolution, anymore than cosmological evolution applies to biological evolution.
>>
>> The fallacy for rejecting memes is in thinking that new thoughts violate the idea of meme evolution.
>>
>> Example: suppose I want to invent a flying car. I could put a car gas engine in it. After trying it, I could learn and then decide to switch to a jet engine. Jet engines are radically different than a car gas engine. Ian seems to think that if the change is small, like going from a small to a large car gas-powered engine, that could be meme evolution but not going from car to jet engine. That's the fallacy.
>>
>> In this way, what's the difference between Beethoven composing a masterpiece and a 3rd yr piano student writing a new song-- it is only a matter of degree. So what? Ian is impressed by the degree of change. To me, it is like being impressed that a car can go 50 mph, but not impressed that it can go 15 mph.
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Murray Hogg
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 3:17 PM
>> To: ASA
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Darwin only biological evolution? (can anything exist without evolution?)
>>
>> I was responding to David not offering a critique of your remarks, Bernie.
>>
>> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>> Pastor Murray said:
>>> " It's frankly critical that we be very clear that ideas do NOT evolve in the same way as bacteria."
>>>
>>> I thought I also clearly said that. It makes me wonder if you read what I wrote.
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jan 15 15:31:04 2009