RE: Precision of replication

From: Lawrence DeBivort (debivort@umd5.umd.edu)
Date: Wed 18 Jun 2003 - 13:03:43 GMT

  • Next message: Chris Taylor: "Origin of memes"

    Good morning,

    I use the term and concept of memeplex, too, in the sense that a memeplex is a collection of memes with a common theme at its core, and in which the participating memes tightly reinforce and amplify each other, or in which the memes are mutually dependent. IIRC, this is, I think, compatible with your own use of the term.

    Then I think that the comments I am making pertain to both memes and memeplexes. In terms of precision of replication, I would guess that a memeplex -- simply because it is more complex -- might replicate with less precision than a single meme, but as I type this I wonder: might the interdependence and interaction of the memes within a memeplex not serve to
    _increase_ the fidelity of the transmission? Hmmmmmm.....interesting thought.

    Richard, is it your thought that memeplexes and memes behave differently when it comes to transmission and replication? I have looked at the case in which only a subset of the memes in a memeplex are transmitted, and what effect that has, but short of this I have been proceeding on the assumption that a memeplex is essentially just a 'big meme' when it comes to transmission.

    I look foreword to your thinking on this.

    Cheers, Lawry

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
    > Of Richard Brodie
    > Sent: Wed, June 18, 2003 12:27 AM
    > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Subject: RE: Precision of replication
    >
    >
    > I think you are using the word "meme" to denote what I would call a
    > memeplex.
    >
    > Richard
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
    > Of Lawrence DeBivort
    > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 8:00 PM
    > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Subject: Precision of replication
    >
    >
    >
    > Wade said:
    > > Replication, mutation, and selection.>>
    >
    >
    > Richard said:
    > > There is no replication because you have similar, not identical,
    > > performances. Replication means identical. The four-note motif, on a
    > > relative scale, is the most identifiable meme in Beethoven's Fifth. Your
    > > "observational tests" depend upon memes in the minds of the
    > > observers. Also,
    > > culture evolves in many other ways besides observers becoming
    > > performers. A
    > > reader of "Taming of the Shrew" may write a musical version
    > which is then
    > > performed by an entirely different set of people who read the
    > book. Also,
    > > you have far too much of your mechanism in your vague, all-encompassing
    > > "venue", which may as well be God for all its scientific usefulness.
    > >
    > > You are essentially saying that, given time and a culture, people will
    > > behave similarly to the way they've seen others behave, but
    > different. You
    > > in no way explain these differences or predict direction. It's
    > > not a model.
    >
    >
    > In our view of memetic dissemination, the replication need not, and will
    > rarely be identical. Yet we call it memetic and this view seems
    > to work well
    > in our work.
    >
    > Why is dissemination nor identical? Because each person (or group
    > of people,
    > for we also think of memes as being able to disseminate to and through
    > groups) will have his own criteria for acceptance which may require some
    > modification of the meme prior to acceptance. So as they
    > disseminate, memes
    > also tend to mutate. The 'power' of the meme lies in part in its
    > ability to
    > withstand such mutation, i.e. to be accepted whole and as close to
    > identically by the recipient.
    >
    > Notwithstanding this lack of identical dissemination, prediction of
    > acceptance is possible, particularly if one can also model the acceptance
    > criteria of the recipient. Such modeling is possible, but we do
    > not consider
    > the methods for doing so to be part of the field of memetics.
    >
    > Does this fit with your thinking, Richard? Wade? Others?
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Lawry
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 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 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 : Wed 18 Jun 2003 - 13:09:03 GMT