RE: Precision of replication

From: Lawrence DeBivort (debivort@umd5.umd.edu)
Date: Thu 19 Jun 2003 - 18:40:23 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T. Smith: "Re: precison of replication"

    Ahhhh, ok, I understand better what you are suggesting: "> Well, a meme gets replicated with 100% fidelity by definition. If it doesn't get replicated exactly then it's a mutation."

    I have not been using the term meme with the same standard of 100% identical replication that you do. In our view of memetics, we accept that rarely will a meme be replicated 100% identically. Like you, I am much intrigued with the usage of words and the promise that resides within the availability of words, both for precision and for mind-changing potential. But I think the wording of a meme -- that is, the stuff that goes between two people -- is only part of the story of dissemination. There is also the processing that occurs within the transmitter, through which he tries with only partial success to find the words that best convey the idea, and the effort by the receiver, also only partly successful, to conjure from the transmitter's words what the actual idea is that lies behind them, and then we have Wade's prescient observation that the cultural venue also exercises its deleterious effect on the fidelity of the dissemination.

    At our end, here, we accept, therefore that the dissemination loses fidelity, and we still call the whole thing a meme. You suggest, if I understand correctly, that we should be calling it a mutation, and you may be right, but I think that there is something in between a 'mutation' and a 100% replicated transmission. A mutation to me seems more random than the process of deterioration that I discuss above. If a transmission mutates, as I hear the term, it becomes something different, its similarity to the original is so perverted that it can not be said to be anymore related, substantively. At the other end, if a meme is only what is passed with 100% fidelity, than I think the term becomes relegated to an extremely small number of instances, so I think that I prefer the more robust definition of meme, one in which deterioration happens routinely, yet the pedigree and connection of influence readily and adequately persists. My operational standards for 'memes' have more to do with the needs and dynamics of influence than with a standard of fidelity that is akin to genetic replication.

    I know that you too are interested in influence and cultural evolution: how can a meme, defined as 100% fidelity, serve the needs of those interests?

    I hope I have understood your thinking correctly, and that I am not dragging us off into a pointless tangent.

    Cheers, Lawry

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
    > Of Richard Brodie
    > Sent: Thu, June 19, 2003 12:30 PM
    > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Subject: RE: Precision of replication
    >
    >
    > Lawry wrote:
    >
    > <<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.>>
    >
    > I don't know what a "common theme" is (other than another meme
    > perhaps). But
    > sure, a memeplex is a bundle of memes that tends to get the memes
    > comprising
    > it replicated with greater frequency than they do on their own.
    >
    > <<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.>>
    >
    > Well, a meme gets replicated with 100% fidelity by definition. If
    > it doesn't
    > get replicated exactly then it's a mutation. And yes, I agree
    > 100% with your
    > interesting thought. The memes comprising a memeplex work together to get
    > the whole bundle passed on.
    >
    > <<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 think you've put your finger on it. It makes no sense to talk
    > about a meme
    > being transmitted with less than 100% fidelity unless you are
    > talking about
    > mutation. With a memeplex, you might be interested in less than
    > 100%-fidelity transmission as long as the receiving mind exhibits similar
    > behavior as a result of sharing the memeplex.
    >
    > Richard Brodie
    > www.memecentral.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 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 : Thu 19 Jun 2003 - 18:45:43 GMT