Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id IAA25982 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 19 Mar 2000 08:27:03 GMT Message-Id: <4.1.20000318234611.00cadb30@mail.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com> X-Sender: dplante@mail.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 00:27:13 -0800 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Dan Plante <dplante@home.com> Subject: Complete thoughts In-Reply-To: <20000317124129.AAA27620@camailp.harvard.edu@[205.240.180.1 50]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
At 07:41 AM 17/03/00 -0500 Wade T.Smith wrote:
>Dan Plante made this comment not too long ago --
>
>>However, the most obvious hallmark is persistence of the organizational
>>information itself (a clutural analogue of genome).
>
>Perfectly evidenced in ants and termites.
If you mean with respect to termite mounds and ant hills, I would have to
disagree. These are examples of what comes OUT of the interaction between
organizational information and the intrinsic dynamics of what is being
organized (individual ant behaviour). Even single-celled organisms make
community housing (coral). The behaviour expressed by termites that results in
mounds is prescribed by genetics, not by thoughts. This particular distinction,
as well as the conceptual validity of thinking itself as another level of
implicate order was so competently put forward by Joe Dees, that anything I
might add would only detract from it, I fear.
But rather than only confusing the issue of what is social, what is cultural,
or indeed, what is an "artifact", or merely tantalizing us with whispers of
some sort of continuum of association (memes vis-a-vis genes), these
perceptions of recapitulated form and function can, if compared and analyzed at
an APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF ABSTRACTION, help us to derive a set of rules, or "map"
by which we can not only discern one level from the other, but also attribute
the confusing array of similar things to their appropriate level, which lets
the "silt settle" and gives us a clearer picture.
Organizational information is a PRESCRIPTION for BEHAVIOUR in that it has the
effect of FEEDING BACK to subordinate levels of emergent complex systems (eg.
in the case of culture, a set of written laws for social units AND individuals)
and constraining their behaviour, drawing it closer to the emerging attractor
(a more orderly, therefore more effective and efficient culture - ie: more
"fit"), thereby deepening the basin of attraction and the dynamic binding
between levels.
So what does all this say about genetics and memetics? Well, if you replace the
word "memetics" with "written language", you can see that both the
message(semantics), AND the method of interpretation(syntax), are included in
the coding.
For instance, genetics indicates a complete polypeptide by constraining reading
to a single cistron (aka "physical gene") by indicating where it should start
and stop with coding called "control sequences". Written language indicates a
complete thought by constraining reading to a single sentence by indicating
where it should start and stop with coding called punctuation.
In both cases, the degree of precision in the code, and degree of temporal
invariance in the code over generations (never perfect - we do have mutation,
after all) is a requirement that is proportional to the degree of complexity
and interdependancy of the parts in a biological organism or a culture, or
what-have-you..
In essence, these are code systems where the RELATIONSHIP between syntax and
semantics is rigidly codified itself, but the RANGE of SEMANTIC EXPRESSION is,
nonetheless, completely open.
Specifically, this is what I think we see between one emergent level
(dynamically stabilized non-equilibrium system) and the next:
Systems of "coding" where:
the semantics is constrained by the syntax and
the syntax is determined by the semantics producing
a rigid (reliable) system of expression and reproduction that is
self-correcting and refines itself over time through negative feedback.
According to Synergistics theory, this dynamic can emerge whenever a complex
system starts to become unstable, usually because of a gradual increase in the
complexity of the system over time through an increase in the number and/or
variety of its constituent components. This aspect of synergistics was detailed
with a very good example by Robert Logan in his post of March 1st, so I won't
delve into it here.
>>The overwhelming majority of what we know [about a vanished society]
>>comes from written records.
>
>The overwhelming evidence that we have of early human society is burial
>plots and cave drawings and fossils.
Fossils tell us that an individual existed a one time. Burial plots tells us
that a social unit probably existed at one time, but doesn't tell us WHY they
buried their dead, or HOW they dug, or much else of anything - these details
died with them (we know OF them, but not ABOUT them). Cave drawings, on the
other hand, can tell us quite a bit more, but only because they are the
persistent, albeit rudimentary beginnings of a written language of symbolic
expression. Would cave drawings then constitute a culture? By the very nature
of emergent systems, there really is no sharp dividing line. Sure, the
underlying dynamics will either be there or not, but near the chaotic boundary
of emergence, small environmental fluctuations will make it wink in and out of
existence, producing intermitency, which in effect still blurs the line. All we
can do after the fact, without 100% of the required information, is a
comparative analysis, and make a judgement based on degree.
>>At this point, WRITTEN language artifacts would seem to be at
>>least one of the order parameters by which cultures emerge and persist,
>>due to
>>their permanence and flexibility of semantic content.
>
>I haven't seen the Macarena written down once.
>
>The persistence of a dance ritual would seem to be evidence, without
>formal calligraphy of its structure, of a cultural artifact, I would
>contend, in that both constancy and meaning are found within it. I don't
>think the immediacy of art makes it just birdsong, just because there
>might only be a record in memory. The experience of that art will be
>transferred, if anything was learned.
I haven't seen the Macarena written down once either, but I figure that's
probably because the "information" in it was not necessary to prescribe
individual or social behaviour at a CULTURAL level. It wasn't a required
component of written law, or required to send a mountain of metal to the moon,
or wipe smallpox from the face of the planet.
It COULD have been written down, but unless it found itself, in written form,
being co-opted as a necessary component of the emergence/persistence of a
culture, it would remain a social thing, in my estimation. You could say social
"artifact", but I would rather not, since it just confuses me. That's why I
tend to say "construct", for lack of a better word.
Are things like the Macarena (or paleolithic, rudimentary versions of it) a
required component for the emergence/stability of SOCIAL units? I would say
yes, as it probably approximates symbolic ritual, which is effective for
constraining individual behaviour on a social level (i.e. group identification
/ belonging / cohesion / meaning - symbology steeped in emotion). Culture, as
I've indicated before, is what I think arises out of the interaction of social
units, when that milieu becomes too large/complex for purely social constructs
to maintain order and cohesion. This can include written laws dealing with
tort, crime or family, reference material that maintains the semantic precision
of a knowledge store far beyond the capacity of individuals or even large
social groups to maintain with required fidelity, records of transactions
required for commerce above a certain size, etc. - all typically (and by
necessity) devoid of emotion. Cultural entities are not required to "handle"
the emotional aspects/needs of individuals two levels down directly, because
the social level already handles it. Culture "handles" the social aspects. The
fact that it also handles the individual aspect is implicit (my master's
master).
I do realize that the scope of discussion surrounding memetics runs the gamut
from internal mental ideation to technology. But I think that spanning two or
more apparent (to me, at least) levels of emergence is
a) biting off more than Memetics can chew, and
b) superimposing patterns from multiple levels, making it extremely difficult
to make things make sense.
If most on this list would rather focus the definition and word "memetics"
towards the dynamics at play at the mental / social boundary, then feel free to
yell at me (caps lock on). As a matter of fact, that's where I think Memetics
with have the best chance of stepping on the least amount of toes. It's just
that I don't feel comfortable yet with a model of what I THINK is going on
there, specifically.
Dan
===============================================================
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 : Sun Mar 19 2000 - 08:27:15 GMT