Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA05582 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 9 Mar 2000 23:24:10 GMT Message-ID: <B0000677437@htcompmail.htcomp.net> X-Sender: mmills@pop3.htcomp.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 18:22:45 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: "Mark M. Mills" <mmills@htcomp.net> Subject: Re: Martin Gardner's commentary In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000309120458.010672f8@popmail.mcs.net> References: <3.0.1.32.20000309010056.00e0a400@popmail.mcs.net> <38C7539D.B6097B38@fcol.com> <20000309011212.AAA12567@camailp.harvard.edu@[205.240.180.180]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
The Gardner review follows in the footsteps of the Nature and Science
reviews of Blackmore's book. In brief, he thinks it silly. At the end of
the review, Gardner sums up his feelings: "Is memetics a misguided attempt
on the part of behavioral scientists to imitate genetics with its gene
units and physics with its elementary particles? In a few years we may know."
I suspect Gardner has little doubt about the outcome. He find the whole
notion silly. He quotes H. Allen Ore, to avoid having to say it himself:
"H. Allen Ore, a University of Rochester geneticist, was quoted in Time as
dismissing memetics as "an utterly silly idea. It's just a cocktail party
science."
His whole argument is summarized in this quote: "I will argue here, a meme
is so broadly defined by its proponents as to be a useless concept,
creating more confusion than light, and I predict that the concept will
soon be forgotten as a curious linguistic quirk of little value....A meme
is little more than a peculiar terminology for saying the obvious."
With one modification, I'm entirely in agreement with Gardner. Gardner has
not differentiated the Gatherer-meme from the Lynch-meme. His attack is
directed at the Gatherer definition. Here is how he defines meme:
"A meme is anything humans do or say that is not genetically determined and
is passed from person to person by imitation or copying, such as the wish
to "have a nice day."
This restates the Gatherer definition. The meme is the behavior. A meme is
anything humans 'do or say.' As Gatherer and Blackmore acknowledge, the
definition abandons the genotype-phenotype model. It cuts any ties to
evolutionary science. It shouldn't be surprising that evolutionary
scientists hate the 'meme=behavior" notion.
The Lynch definition only comes under mild attack. " As Blackmore makes
clear, memes have a physical basis of some sort inside brains, where they
are stored in one's memory in ways nobody understands. This is important in
helping us understand how memes and genes differ. Genes have become
visible. They are spots along the DNA double helix that have been isolated
and observed. They are as real as atoms. How memes live in brains is a
mystery."
Adherents to the Lynch definition have little trouble with this. They can
point out similarities between DNA sequences and neural receptor sequences.
Research into understanding these neural sequences may be limited, but we
are making rapid progress. The current understanding of synapse receptor
sequences is not unlike the understanding of DNA during the 1900-1910
period when DNA was linked to heredity.
As far as I'm concerned, the issue is not the term, but the focus. If we
are focused on cultural change in the abstract, with no neural foundations,
we ignore a powerful body of knowledge being collected and risk 'missing
the boat.' If we are focused on the neural foundations for culture and
cultural change, we can see the boat coming an hop on. The term meme may
ultimately be dismissed, but it matters little to me. Whatever the name, I
fully anticipate there being bodies of knowledge built upon the premise
that neural substrates function like DNA. Genes play a foundational role
in production of physiological effects, organizational units on the neural
substrate do the same for cultural effects.
I suspect those interested in the neural basis of culture will be forced to
work with the terminology used by scientists doing research on
nerve-to-nerve signal processing. I doubt these researchers want an
inflammatory term like 'meme' involved with their work. If I were writing
a paper on neural signal processing in the thalamus, I would avoid terms
that immediately bring up cultural issues. It should be interesting to see
what develops. For now, meme is just fine with me.
From this perspective, the Gardener review is like a breath of fresh air.
I hope people here talk about the issues he raises. It's a good article.
Mark
===============================================================
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 : Thu Mar 09 2000 - 23:24:16 GMT