Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA23629 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 31 Jan 2000 19:06:59 GMT From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> Organization: Reborn Technology To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Fwd: Re: What are memes made of? Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 18:57:50 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21] Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <00013118594402.00393@faichney> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Forwarded to the list with Mark's permission. My response follows.
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: What are memes made of?
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 00 21:58:48 -0000
From: "Mark M. Mills" <mmills@htcomp.net>
Robin,
Thanks for posting your essay. I hope you continue with it.
My primary criticism is the lack of clear foundations, particularly for
the key term 'information.'
The essay starts with a description of information as 'simply the form,
or structure, of matter.' Though not stated, I'm assuming this reflects
Frieden's use of the term. In the second sentence, you say: "Physical
information is inversely proportional to entropy..."
I'm assuming this is Frieden's sense of 'information.' I'm more familiar
with Shannon information theory, so this confuses me. Shannon shows
information capacity proportional to entropy (higher the entropy, the
higher the information capacity).
C=H/(T/N-lambda) (from Shannon's 1948 paper 'A Mathematical theory of
Communication')
C=information capacity
H=entropy
T=time
N=number of bits per signal
Lambda= noise term (I'm not entirely confident on this)
In Shannon terms, the presence of noise (high entropy) increases the
information content. For example, radio started with amplitude
modulation. Noise was frequency modulation. FM technology turned FM
noise into signal, increasing radio's information capacity above that of
AM technology.
Since I'm familiar with Shannon information theory, making high entropy
low information confuses me. I have to ask how fiber optics, using high
entropy light frequency ends up labeled low information. Alternatively,
prior to the big bang, the universe was a massively compact spec of
matter. Entropy was almost zero. In this state, there was no
information contained in the universe (no history). How can this be
described as a 'high information' state?
Information, form, identity.. all these terms are very difficult to
define, but critical to your argument. I could probably in step with
your use of these terms, I just need definitions and maybe an example or
two.
Here are two words I found myself wishing you would use: isomorphism and
'bit.' Isomorphism is central to any logical differentiation of one
'identity' from another. When talking about parent and child 'carrying'
a single gene, one has to be using some sense of isomorphism.
Once isomorphism comes up, the idea of a 'bit' seems to follow. A bit is
simply the smallest unit of isomorphic form.
Back to the essay...
It seems that one of your main points is differentiation of substance
isomorphism and formal isomorphism. Your comment that evolutionary
biologists use 'hierarchical, recursive definition, so that one higher
level gene is composed of two or more lower level ones" was very, very
interesting. Unfortunately, this theme was not explored explicitly. I
would have loved to have read more about this. I'm assuming this is
suggesting evolutionary biologists use formal isomorphism while molecular
biologists use substance isomorphism.
Instead of elaborating on evolutionary biologists using multilevel genes,
the essay goes into a discussion of form, identity and coding. It seems
your goal is a proof that genes and memes are information, not physical
substance. I'm not sure I'm reading you right, but that's the best I can
make of it. You end the essay saying 'Memes, like genes, are encoded
physical information, but exist at a higher level of organization.' This
seems to be a restatement of the evolutionary biologists view (the
multilevel notion for the term 'gene').
Thus, as best I can tell, the essay is really an attack on the
conventional belief that chunks of DNA are literally genes.
Well, that's all. Just some comments. I find the topics very important,
so I like your paper. Keep working on it!
Mark
PS If you want me to post this reply to the list, let me know.
-- Robin Faichney===============================This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 19:06:59 GMT