Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA01386 (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 19:12:37 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000330120959.0107c3cc@popmail.mcs.net> X-Sender: aaron@popmail.mcs.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:09:59 -0600 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net> Subject: Re: objections to "memes" In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000329123246.0117980c@popmail.mcs.net> References: <000f01bf9693$01c96d00$cb00bed4@default> <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
>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.
I should clarify that I meant to say in the above paragraph that the axons
and dendrites that form synapses are parts of cells.
>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
In the last paragraph, I should have credited Dan Plante as being the
electrical engineer present here, although there may of course be others.
--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 - 19:12:54 BST