Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA02772 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 2 Feb 2000 09:04:08 GMT From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> Organization: Reborn Technology To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: More on what memes are made of Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 08:08:55 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21] Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <00020208400903.00437@faichney> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
It occurred to me that what I'm trying to say about physical information, genes
and memes could perhaps be made clearer by a little additional explanation on a
particular point.
Some time ago I came to the conclusion that the trajectory of an arrow, for
instance, is just as real as the arrow itself. The trajectory is not
"substantial", but it is a pattern based in the material world, and if we
examine the arrow as closely as we can, down to the atomic and subatomic
levels, we find that in fact it's not very "substantial" either. We are, due
to evolution, somewhat better equipped to handle arrows than trajectories
(though in fact we're quite amazingly good at dealing with the latter -- watch
any ball game, or better still, play it, while mindful of trajectory plotting). But
that's no reason to view the arrow as "more real".
Encoded physical information, as in genes and memes, is much more like the
trajectory, than the arrow. Or think of the relationship between two arrows as
they lie in the quiver, waiting to be used. There is the distance between
them, the direction, and their relative orientation -- one might unfortunately
be head-up, ready to cut the archer's hand as she reaches for it. I see no
reason to view this relationship as any less real than the arrows. Then
consider the way this relationship changes over time as the person at whose
waist it hangs jogs along a forest track from one target to the next. Seems to
me that the relationship has a trajectory that is no less real than any of the
physical objects involved.
The encoding of genes in DNA is due to the relationship between the DNA
molecule and the remainder of the cell in which it is carried, because it is
due to the interactions between DNA and cellular mechanisms that we get the
"genetically determined" development of the organism. Genes are not simple
physical objects, or parts of one, but elements of the relationships between
these things. Simple physical objects, from the formal stance, embody the
information that is their own description. That information is all we know of
them, though there obviously must be "something out there" on which it is
based. Genes, as *encoded* physical information, are just as real, but are not
simple (unencoded) physical objects. They exist in the relationships between
such things, as these develop over time. And memes are ontologically very
similar, though their "lifecycle" is quite different.
Hope that helps! I'll think about incorporating it, or something to the same
effect, in the essay. (And I hope it gives the lie to accusations of
reductionism.)
-- 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 : Wed Feb 02 2000 - 09:04:09 GMT