Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA22637 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 10 Jun 2000 21:43:18 +0100 Message-ID: <B0003952644@htcompmail.htcomp.net> X-Sender: mmills@pop3.htcomp.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 15:51:23 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: "Mark M. Mills" <mmills@htcomp.net> Subject: Re: Imitation or transmission? In-Reply-To: <20000610110615.30526.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Diana,
At 04:06 AM 6/10/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Mark wrote:
>
><Can you describe the entity being transmitted? Can you then link the
>entity to natural selection?>
>Natural selection has been compromised since the invention of agriculture,
>and now we have genetic engineering also. Do do we have to stick to the
>natural selection model for memes?
By natural selection, I meant the process of selecting individuals
successfully reproducing themselves in next generation. Despite advances
of science, all living individuals face death.
My word 'natural' is not particularly important though. Selection by
itself works almost as well. If you want to conclude the works of man are
'artificial' , I would understand your meaning.
My purpose was to focus on the role of population dynamics in our
discussion here. If we are talking about culture in an evolutionary
context, we need to be grounded in conventional evolutionary logic. Most
biologists will describe evolution in terms of changing gene pools. An
evolutionary change is documented by counting individual phenotypes,
isolating the related genes and charting the gene populations. Both natural
and un-natural selections produce changes.
Charting meme populations seem a good practice for studying cultural
evolution. Count the cultural phenotypes, isolate the related memes and
chart the changing meme populations. Like genetics, we would be
interested in the fidelity and fecundity of various memes during
replication. Do certain memes replicate 1000 times in their individual
lifetime? a million times? a billion times?
>I can think of many memes which are widely copied [but] I'm not sure how
they
>can be linked to natural selection. Whole national cultures have changed on
>the whim of the sovereign, for example.
This example works very nicely. I'm going to use the Lynch definition for
meme (meme = electro-chemical pattern on neural tissue). I'm not as
comfortable with the more commonly used Gatherer meme (meme = behavior or
artifact), but Gatherer has said he could count his memes, too. Perhaps
someone else will illustrate this example with Gatherer-memes. Gatherer
liked the Windsor Knot meme which I'll be using.
Let's imagine the sovereign says 'every male will wear a Windsor knot to
Sunday church services.' If we are looking at the Windsor Knot meme, we
could definitely conclude the king 'has' the Windsor knot meme. When he
dies, the meme he possess dies. Will the king's son possess the Windsor
Knot meme? Will a competing knot be popularized by the king's son? This
is the stuff of cultural evolution.
Before the king dies, let's say 100,000 males start wearing Windsor ties.
Some already know about Windsor ties (possess the Windsor Knot meme),
others are taught (acquire the Windsor knot meme). We can judge things
like fecundity and fidelity by measuring the number of accurately tied
Windsor knots each Sunday for the next 100 years. Depending on our
characterization of the 'true' Windsor knot, we might track variations in
tie length, knot thickness, color choice, etc. Some of these variations
might be found to be more fecund than other variations.
Selection comes up every moment of the 100 year study. Everyone who
acquires the Windsor knot meme might 'forget it' (memetic death). If they
'forget it' before teaching someone else, their individual meme dies
without replicating. It would be 'selected out.' After 100 years, one
could say the 'king's meme' was most fecund based on similarities in color,
length and thickness across the kingdom.
In general, if we want to talk about cultural evolution issues in
scientific terms, we need to be clear about what can be counted as
individual expressions of a meme. We also need to be clear about how one
measures memetic properties like reproductive fecundity and fidelity.
Every time I go to work, I transmit a batch of memes across town, but this
isn't the sense most people use for the phrase 'transmitting memes.'
Talking is often described as a method of 'transmitting' memes. I think
this is misleading and offers little evolutionary insight. It short
circuits any conversation about the replication process and ignores the
important evolutionary issues of selection, replication fidelity and
replication fecundity. If we want to better understand cultural evolution,
we need to pay attention to replication.
Mark
===============================================================
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 : Sat Jun 10 2000 - 21:43:57 BST