From: Agocs Viorel (viorel_agocs@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat 01 Feb 2003 - 08:27:33 GMT
"Minimum separabile" and the memetic code
I have been following the memetic debate on Internet
for more than a year now, when I realized that
something is missing. I also think that the debate has
been going on for too long at the abstract level and
it is time to make the shift to the concrete. The
reason there are so many unbelievers is that we do not
have any reference to the MEMETIC CODE and a
mechanistic model of the structure of the meme. We
also do not have a proper definition regarding the
ENCODING MEDIUM of the memetic code. But, in the
process of correcting this, we forget that prior to
the gene was the proteine and prior to the codon was
the amino-acid. We already knew a lot about the
amino-acids and the proteins long before we knew
anything about the gene itself. We have been following
the wrong path all along all along trying to find out
the structure of the meme first. It is like trying to
broke the nutshell from inside out. It is known that
the gene is built up from sub-units we call codons and
we define this in reference to the amino-acids. If the
gene have such sub-units, I wonder why shouldn't the
meme have too? In the following I hope to prove,
indirectly, the existence of these memetic sub-units
as real, physical entities by demonstrating the
existence of an anatomical structure similar to the
amino-acid, which functions as encoding medium for the
memetic code. In the same way the codons code for
amino-acids, the memetic sub-units also code for
something I will temporarily call "minimum
separabile". Hold that idea! The term "minimum
separabile" belongs to Lorenz, who studied the
phylogenetic development of voluntary movements
through the animal kingdom (the term was originally
used to explain the separation power of the retina).
I've been reading these days this book on ethology, in
Romanian, when I stumbled on this passage:
"As I emphasized earlier, there is a basic
physiological difference between two types of
instinctive motion: one type which refuses to comply
to the learning process, and another type which, on
the contrary, possess a high tendency to associate
with diverse conditioning stimuli during the learning
process. This basic physiological difference between
the behaviours unsuited for the learning process and
those suited, relies on the fact that the former are
activated by a single unitary and extremely specific
motivation, while the later are not activated by such
a single unitary motivation. The later can be
incorporated in more than one behaviour, each with
different motivations. For this reason they are called
instrumental activities.
When the environment and life conditions of a species
demands a sudden and total adaptability of the motions
of that species, which cannot be provided by the
existing complexes of ereditary motions, than the
phylogenetic adaptation is realized by fragmentation
in many small elements (units), each of these
remaining just as rigid as any centrally coordinated
motion; each of these, because of their limited size
and because of their permanent availability, are
suitable to be used as separate pieces in the process
of learning new motions, with practically infinite
complexity. Metaphoricaly speaking, the ereditary
coordinated motions does not alter like an elastic
ribbon, moulding itself on the demands of the
environment, but rather like A CHAIN CONSISTING OF
MANY SMALL RINGS WHICH CAN INTERCHANGE.
This becomes very obvious if we compare the locomotion
of a few related species, but species living in
different environments. The more homogenous the
environment is, the narrower the adaptability it
demands. In the case of Ungulates the locomotion
(walk, trot, gallop) is globally coordinated. In this
case the soil, being relatively homogeneous, provides
each step with the same support. But, being confronted
suddenly with obstacles unforeseen, these Ungulates,
which live on open steppe, stumble almost allways,
because they lack the proper coordination. A more
precise coordination of motion is possible only when
the smallest autonomous unit of motion - "minimum
separabile" or voluntary motion, as Lorenz calls it -
is as limited as possible. Indeed, for the animal to
be able to target a particular point, like the surface
of a small stone on a mountain side, and successfully
pass through it, he must coordinate its each step as
precisely as possible. So, in order to coordinate its
motions, it is vital that this smallest unit to be
available independently from other similar units. This
capacity to fragment the global ereditary coordination
in small, isolated units, which makes them available
to be organized, through learning, in a succession of
voluntary motions, is a phylogenetic adaptation more
obvious in the case of mamals which lives at high
altitudes, with rough terrain, like Capra ibex, Capra
pyrenaica etc.
The environment which demands the largest flexibility
of the coordination of locomotion, and the greatest
possibility to combine these isolated units in
complex, learned motions is the tree canopy. The
fragmentation is more obvious in Primates because they
can use their prehensile hands, legs and tail to grasp
deliberatelly a certain branch.
K. Lorenz concludes that the process by means of which
small elements of motion are extracted from the whole,
in order to gain a relative autonomy - which allows
them to be used to the construction of new, learned
behaviours - leads to the apparition of the so called
voluntary motions."
So, I conclude that these "minimum separabile" are in
fact the _encoding medium_ for the memetic code. They
are anatomical structures used to create a variety of
complex motions, in the same way the amino-acids are
uses to create a large variety of complex proteins.
Each amino-acid in the protein has its coresponding
codon within the structure of the gene, and each
"minimum separabile" has its corresponding sub-unit
within the structure of the meme. One involves the
other. In fact, all that a learning system needs is a
code (genetic or memetic) and an encoding medium, a
set of recombinable elements that we call amino-acids
or, in the case of memetic code, these "minimum
separabile". All we have to do now is to delimit
anatomically these "minimum separabile".
P. Weiss postulated 6 levels of inclusiveness for
motion:
Level 1. Basic unit of contraction (muscle fiber)
Level 2. All the muscle fibers which belong to the
same muscle
Level 3. The synergistic activity of all the muscles
which move the same joint
Level 4. The co-ordinated motion of one leg, hand etc
Level 5. The co-ordinated motion of more organs
Level 6. The motion of the whole body
Considering that we cannot voluntarily move a single
muscle fiber (Level 1) or even a single muscle (Level
2), the best match for our above description of
"minimum separabile" seems to be Level 3. It is the
smallest irreducible voluntary motion. I will remind
you that most animal joints have one, two, or three
degrees of freedom. Most joints have _at least_ two
muscles for each degree of freedom (two "minimum
separabile"), because each muscle is paired with a
muscle of the opposite effect.
If we take the human ankle, for instance, we can see
that it has two degrees of freedom, because it can
exhibit flexion and extension, as well as inversion
and eversion. We can conclude that, in the case of the
human ankle, there are at least four "minimum
separabile" (four "amino-acids") which forms the basic
elements to a large variety of motions that the human
ankle can perform through learning. Just think at the
amazing performance of a ballet dancer.
If we consider the human jaw, we can see that it has
three degrees of freedom: it can move right and left,
up and down, back and forth. Of course, through the
combination of these six (six "minimum separabile"),
the jaw can perform a large variety of other, more
complex, motions (many of them involved in speach). In
this case there are not one, but two joints involved
(but this is not relevant).
Another example is the human eyelid. It can perform
only two basic motions: up and down. But through the
combination of these two, it may result very complex
and subtle motions (just remember the way your
girl-friend looks at you sometimes).
All this is true for the vocal apparatus, too: the
tongue and the larynx. One might object that the
tongue makes an exception because it doesn't have a
bony skeleton, so it doesn't have joints. But this is
not true because the tongue's body does have a fibrous
skeleton which serves as insertion points for the
tongue's muscles.
Everybody knows that each amino-acid has its
corresponding codon within the genetic code. If we
accept all that I said above, we must also accept that
each "synergistic activity of all the muscles which
move the same joint", each "minimum separabile", has
its corresponding "codon" within the MEMETIC CODE. In
respect with the term "codon", I will name it "MEMON".
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
===============================================================
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 2.1.5 : Sat 01 Feb 2003 - 08:25:54 GMT