Peter Okner wrote:
>"A human can teach a dog to play fetch the ball and the dog can teach
>another human in reverse.
>The dog can also be a passive carrier. for example, the game inspires a
>spectator to try the same with his dog.A human can teach a dog to play
>fetch >the ball and the dog can teach
>another human in reverse.
>The dog can also be a passive carrier. for example, the game inspires a
>spectator to try the same with his dog."
True enough. I would still maintain that these cases, as they do not
involve abstract symbols, are not of much interest. The interesting cases,
especially with dogs who play fetch and thus facilitate the propagation of
the 'fetch' meme-complex, involve, as I wrote yesterday, human guidence.
Examining animal behavior in light of memetics doesn't seem to shed much
illumination on those behaviors. I'm making a claim about what is
interesting, and such claims are obviously subjective. You're welcome to
dissagree, but I would maintain that replicating patterns of non-genetic
information get interesting when they have symbolic content.
There are non-symbolic behavioral replicators, e.g. tool use in chimps
(and, heck, you might argue that the chimp case is interesting in that
chimps who make and use tools do so because they have an abstract mental
construct of a potential state of affairs they'd like to bring about, i.e.
a belly full of bugs) but we don't need memetics to construct a
fairly-exhaustive explanatory account of them. Again, a statement of
personal interest. Take care, all. -KMO