Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA00466 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:46:06 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000329123246.0117980c@popmail.mcs.net> X-Sender: aaron@popmail.mcs.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:32:46 -0600 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net> Subject: Re: objections to "memes" In-Reply-To: <000f01bf9693$01c96d00$cb00bed4@default> References: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJIEMMEIAA.richard@brodietech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
At 08:47 PM 3/25/00 +0100, Kenneth Van Oost wrote:
>
>Richard, right you are!!!
>
>I said it before and I will say it here one more time, without counting in
>the
>neurological representations of what somebody is thinking, you can't fully
>determine the aspect of memetics!!
>
>That is,for example,the state of mind wherein a child found herself at the
>time she decided (for herself) to become a teacher, plays a role in (hers)
>future meme activity and affects her behavior.Of course that idea affects
>as well,accordingly people's mind in her environment. Without, like Richard
>said, you miss out on the heart of memetics!!
It is good to see that people have been emphasizing the neurological basis
of memes all along. Since my 1991 paper "Thought Contagion as Abstract
Evolution" and my 1998 JOM paper "Units, Events, and Dynamics in Memetic
Evolution," I have *defined* the very word "meme" in terms of neurally
stored memory items (which I called "mnemons" in 1991). I have also
emphasized that what is distinctly useful in the theory of "memes" (so
defined) is that differences in memory content cause differences in
behavior which in turn cause differences in the transmission and retention
of memory content. (My book and articles have many examples of that.)
"Transmission" is equivalent to "causation" of new instances memory items
that are "the same" (with respect to abstraction) as prior instances.
I have also been explicit since 1991 that the term "memory item" and the
identification of specific memory items is all based on abstraction. To be
more specific, these abstractions are theoretical constructs, as pointed
out by Bob Logan. Theoretical constructs, and abstractions, play a central
role in all of science.
The use of "memory items" as abstractions/theoretical constructs does not
imply that one does not recognize the existence of other, more fundamental
abstractions and theoretical constructs.
Moreover, the description of memetics as being about how memory items
influence behaviors that propagate memory items need not be taken as
implying a rigid memory/behavior dichotomy. The phenomenon we call "life"
is a material process, and processes can be viewed as behaviors. Some
behaviors can be labeled "internal" while others can be labeled "external"
while still others can be labeled as mixes of "internal" and "external."
The neural memory of anything is actually a process. A synapse, for
instance, is a dynamic, ever-changing, metabolizing part of a cell. Its
lipids, water, ions, proteins, etc. are all in states of flux at various
rates. It is only through process that it remains "the same" (with respect
to an abstraction) from one day to the next, or one year to the next. Thus,
while I use "memory items" as a theoretical construct, the language can all
be rephrased such that I am talking about behaviors causing behaviors. The
"internal" neural behaviors that I call "memory items" can thus affect
"external" speech behavior, for instance. That "external" behavior can then
affect the "internal" behavior of another person in such a way as to cause
a new "internal" behavior that is "the same" (with respect to
abstraction/theoretical construct) as the "internal" behavior of the first
person.
Such theoretical constructs handle the recurrence of external behaviors in
a single organism as well. They are also intended to remain consistent with
recent and potential future observations of internal behaviors using PET
scans, etc.--the neurobiological research.
While all of the above was said without reference to computer memory, it is
nevertheless interesting to point out some similarities--especially as you
are an electrical engineer. A "1" or a "0" in static RAM, for instance, is
also a process for most current technologies. A bunch of "analog"
transistors are wired together so as to behave in a relatively bimodal
fashion--a fashion corresponding to abstractions ("1" and "0") used by the
engineer who designed the circuit. Then, when the process of currents
running through the transistors is initiated from a power supply set in a
certain range of voltages, currents and voltages that the engineer labeled
as "0" or "1" are produced. The persistence, or "sameness" (with respect to
abstraction) of a "0" or "1" from one millisecond to the next is then
maintained by the dynamic process of currents flowing. "Static" RAM is thus
based on a dynamic process. Nevertheless, the theoretical construct of
"static 1" or "static 0" is useful in describing and analyzing the behavior
of the device. Likewise, terms such as "memory content" are useful
theoretical constructs/abstractions. On a more fundamental level, the
theoretical constructs of "charge carriers" such as "holes" are useful in
the design of semiconductors--a fact that Bob Logan should appreciate.
--Aaron Lynch
===============================================================
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 30 2000 - 10:46:32 BST