Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA20337 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:37:20 +0100 Message-ID: <004a01bfd24e$0d594720$b121e7d8@proftim> From: "Tim Rhodes" <proftim@speakeasy.org> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Criticisms of Blackmore's approach Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:03:23 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Raymond Recchia wrote:
<<<Linguistic transmission though is a different process and may not involve
any imitation at all. As hypothetical example consider the following:
<<<Mr Einstein frequently mutters the phrase 'E=mc2' in the presence of his
parrot. After a while the parrot begins imitating Albert, copying tone and
inflection to a such a degree that only a professional voice imitator could
match it.
<<<Later Einstein gets another parrot. By this time he has stopped
muttering
'E=mc2' but his first parrot hasn't. The second parrot learns to imitate the
first one.
<<<At some point, Mr. Heisenberg happens upon the parrots. He hears them
imitating Mr. Einstein and realizes that the parrots have the solution to a
problem Mr. Heisenberg has been unable to solve for years. Mr. Heisenberg
is mute and cannot ever mutter the phrase 'E=mc2'. He does write it
frequently though and many others learn it from him.
<<<Where are the memes?>>>
Right here:
Einstien + cultural knowledge (Physics) = inital L-meme
Einstein --> Parrot1 G-meme replication
Parrot1 ---> Parrrot2 G-meme replication
Parrot2 ---> Heisenberg G-meme replication
Heisenberg + cultural knowledge (Physics) --> Heisenberg L-meme
replication
Quite simple really.
A similar example for the gene/meme obsessed:
A Scientist locates the gene responsible for a disease. He replicates
copies of the "healthy" DNA strand in the lab over several months. He then
reintroduces the gene into human cells to prevent the disease.
When the DNA strand was in the original healthy human, combined with their
physiology, it created proteins which in turn prevented disease. When the
DNA strand was in the lab, being replicated in a test-tube, it created
nothing but other copies of itself and had no bearing on anyone's health
whatsoever. (Certainly not the test-tube's!) When reintroduced into its
proper context, it once again had an effect on the hosts health.
Two processes are at work in both the above examples -- the simple copying
the of data, and the *effect* of the copied data when it is in context.
Each process needs to be addressed on its own in order to make sense of the
net effects of the replication. Once you do, the process in total unfolds
itself with great ease.
-Tim Rhodes
===============================================================
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 : Fri Jun 09 2000 - 20:38:00 BST