Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA05760 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 11 Jun 2000 20:31:30 +0100 Message-ID: <B0003972722@htcompmail.htcomp.net> X-Sender: mmills@pop3.htcomp.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:39:54 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: "Mark M. Mills" <mmills@htcomp.net> Subject: Re: Criticisms of Blackmore's approach In-Reply-To: <001401bfd394$44ebfc40$8603bed4@default> References: <4.3.1.0.20000609101720.00c29290@pop3.htcomp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Kenneth,
>If a meme is not a ' natural object ', not a signal, not a mental concept,
>not an arifact...what is then a ' new meme ' !?
>Did we ever came up with a term for this !?
A Lynch-meme (neural meme) is certainly a natural object. It could be
observed as a 'signal' if one had the technology to visualize 'gate charge
states' at the synapse level. In general, the neural meme is better seen
as a feature of the signal generator process and thus mental concepts.
The neural meme is the genotype, behavior, including mental concepts,
represent the phenotype.
In general, one would not describe a Lynch meme as an artifact, but since
they can be created via training, I guess one could make that claim, too.
Just like genetics, the Lynch-meme vocabulary is an attempt to characterize
real features of biology. The synapses can be seen operating like logic
gates and signal generators. Autophosphoralating kinases molecules are
the fastest known molecular switches to electric current. Cadherin
molecules provide the binding features required to weave a highly detailed
pattern of gates.
Knowing the molecular dynamics operating at the synapse level may not
'explain' cognition and culture, but it will undoubtedly constrain the
models we use. For example, there is a lot of concern among US parents
regarding 'hyperactive children,' or 'Attention Deficit Disorder' (ADD).
Parents in America tend to use ADD terminology to justify giving their
children a variety of psychoactive drugs. There is some controversy
regarding this treatment. Is ADD trained? Is ADD biological? Is therapy
a better treatment than psychoactive drugs? Is ADD related to watching
American TV?
When addressing issues such as 'ADD,' our biological models of cognition
become important. I recently read a book called 'Change your brain, change
your life' by Amen. It presents about 50 stories about Dr. Amen relating
patient behaviors to various hyperactive/underactive parts of the brain.
The evidence of brain disfunction is supported by brain imagery (SPECT
scans). This sort of evidence was unavailable 20 years ago. Dr. Amen
argues that behavior emerges from biology and contrasts his work from the
more conventional view that brains are 'pure logic' machines and need not
be studied (Turing proved that all logic machines can produce the same
answer if given enough time). In one dramatic case, Dr. Amen has to search
the country for a surgeon willing to perform brain surgery on a patient.
Most of the surgeons contacted refused to operate, thinking therapy (talk)
was more appropriate. In the end, Dr. Amen found the surgeon and the
patient regained normal behaviors.
As to 'new memes', they are as easy to describe as 'new genes.' Every time
a biologist promotes a new category of phenotypic expression, he has
created a new gene. Similarly, every time someone promotes a new category
of behavior, they have created a new neural meme.
>If you don' t like (puzzled by) the word ' transmit ' regarding memes, how
>do you explain the term you use (replicating) concerning new memes !?
>What is here replicated !?
In brief, neural patterns are replicated via interpersonal interaction. In
the Windsor Knot example, Dad talks to son and shows him how to tie the
knot.. The words and gestures dad uses stimulate the son's brain and
establish new patterns of memories (physically related to kinases patterns
and new synapse connections). Replication of the meme can be proven when
the son ties the knot on his own.
Some might argue that this example fails because there is little, if any,
neural isomorphism between father and son relative to the Windsor Knot. I
am not sure this is the issue you raise, but I'll elaborate a bit since it
is probably on your mind.
Neural memetics can use the same 'classes' of isomorphism used in genetics:
phenotypic isomorphism, marker isomorphism and sequence isomorphism. The
classic 'blue eye' gene is an example of phenotypic isomorphism. We can
show genes exist via population studies, but no sequence isomorphism exists
at the level of 'blue eyes.' Isomorphism (individual A and B have the
gene) is entirely defined by phenotypic expression. Scientists have been
identifying this class of gene for over a century. My Windsor Knot meme is
an example of replication with this level of isomorphism.
About 40 years ago, we found techniques allowing sequences within the DNA
strands to be identified. This initiated work defining genetic isomorphism
at the level of DNA markers. For example, biologists talk about 'cancer
genes.' These 'genes' are based on some geneticist observing a statistical
relationship between DNA markers and cancer rates among individuals
carrying the marker. The isomorphism of the 'gene' is not a 'DNA
instruction' isomorphism, but more of a fingerprint isomorphism. The
markers are generally junk sequences passively carried from one generation
to the next. If one were to compare chunks of DNA exhibiting 'marker'
isomophism, there would be vast differences between the two strands.
For memetics, 'marker isomorphism' is being reported in books like Dr.
Amen's 'Change your brain, change your life'. The markers are observed by
various brain scans (Amen uses SPECT scans). Dr. Amen can statistically
correlate these brain markers with behaviors (memetic phenotypes).
Sequence isomorphism is determined only at the level of organic molecules.
The human genome project seeks to define all the human 'genes', but the
general public fails to realize molecular biologists define 'gene' in terms
of organic molecules. When the human genome project is complete, we will
have a list of all the molecules available to the human population.
Basically, each gene produces one unique molecule. At this level,
geneticists can take specific DNA sequences and link them to specific
organic molecules. Above the molecular level, we don't know the
operational path, but we have to rely on 'marker' isomorphism.
Memetic sequence isomorphism is probably 20 or 30 years in the future, but
it isn't to hard to predict a general model for where they will be found.
The memetic analog for organic molecules is probably going to be
inter-cellular neural signals. I suspect there will be classes of kinases
patterns producing isomorphic neural signals. Just as one combines
molecules to build phenotypic structures, one combines inter-neural signals
to produce behavior.
At the memetic sequence level, we probably inherit a starter set via
genetic operations, but they may turn out to be products of
self-organization. When replicating the Windsor Knot meme, much of the
molecular activity probably involves signal conversion (sensation to
electrical impulse), transmission of signal, memorization of signal and
finally signal generation. I suspect much of this involves various
replicating fundamental electrochemical units (feedback loops, memory
circuits, signal generators, etc), but we are only beginning to discover
these neural features.
Does this answer your question about 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 : Sun Jun 11 2000 - 20:32:10 BST