RE: Defining the word "replicator" (was Re: Silent memes)

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Wed 06 Aug 2003 - 02:42:50 GMT

  • Next message: Keith Henson: "Re: Defining the word "replicator" (was Re: Silent memes)"

    From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: RE: Defining the word "replicator" (was Re: Silent memes) Date sent: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 22:23:04 -0400 Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    >
    >
    All this seems to be dancing around the type/token distinction, where particular instantiations are tokens of a general type.
    >
    > >From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
    > >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > >To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    > >Subject: RE: Defining the word "replicator" (was Re: Silent memes)
    > >Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 11:47:18 -0400
    > >
    > >I wonder whether there is confusing arising from Dawkins'
    > >terminology?
    > >
    > >A "replicator" should be the thing that is doing the replication, and
    > >not that thing that is being replicated.
    > >
    > >The thing that is being replicated should be called a "REPLICATEE",
    > >and the thing doing the replication should be called the "REPLICATOR"
    > > -- this reflects standard subject/object usage, unless I am
    > >mistaken.
    > >
    > This sort of dovetails with terms I've pondered as to their
    > relationship, archetype and ectype. I'm not all that familiar with the
    > eytmology and history of these terms, but the archetype would probably
    > be the original object or primordium and the ectype would be the copy.
    > I recall sometime about coinage where the die casts coins and the die
    > would be the archetype and the coins would be the ectypes, but this is
    > off the top of my head. Is ectype listed in the OED?
    >
    > Going to Plato and the Idea (or eidos) the archetype would be perfect
    > and transcendent where the ectype would be the imperfect
    > representation.
    >
    > Going to Morphological Idealism the archetype or *Bauplan* would be
    > the idealized abstraction of a set of organisms and the individual
    > organisms the imperfect representations. There's both unity of type
    > and conditions of existence at play.
    >
    > As superceded by Darwinian historicity, the archetype becomes the
    > common ancestor and the ectype would be the descendent species. OTOH
    > we could have the body plan and the variations on this theme (ie-
    > vertebrata as represented by eels, snakes and birds).
    >
    > I digress.
    >
    > Unfortunately archetype has a checkered history and its coinage into
    > the realm of psychology has its obvious foibles. Need I name names?
    > ;-)
    >
    > But if an idea replicates there will be an origin (primordium) and
    > branching (or reticulation?) beyond this point.
    >
    > One problem faced with ideational "archetypes" (*sensu* Jung) is
    > whether mythical themes are a result of a phylogenetic heritage or
    > cultural diffusion. Even if stories have motifs when comparing across
    > cultures what can be inferred? It's a similar problem faced by ev
    > psych. If universals are truly teased out from the data of human
    > behavior, what can be assumed about the basis of these universals? Did
    > they have a common origin in history (perhaps cultural replicators)?
    > Are they a result of ecological convergence (myths about the moon
    > which is an object of the environment shared across isolated
    > cultures)? Do they stem from something innate (ie- genetic
    > replicators)? > >Does this help? > >Cheers, >Lawry > > > -----Original
    > Message----- > > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    > [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf > > Of AaronLynch@aol.com >
    > > Sent: Tue, August 05, 2003 11:22 AM > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk > >
    > Subject: Re: Defining the word "replicator" (was Re: Silent memes) > >
    > > > > > In a message dated 8/5/2003 4:52:47 AM Central Daylight > >
    > Time, Derek Gatherer dgatherer2002@yahoo.co.uk writes: > > > > > ---
    > AaronLynch@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated > > > > > > > do
    > please > > > > quote that > > > > definition verbatim in its
    > entirety, again with > > > > source and > > > > page numbers. > > >
    > > > > You're looking for something along the lines of: > > > > > >
    > REPLICATOR: noun, c.1976. An entity which ...... and > > > is further
    > defined by..... > > > > > > in the space of a paragraph or so. I
    > doubt if you'll > > > find anything like that, as it isn't the style
    > of the > > > biology literature to provide that kind of thing - too >
    > > > many exceptions, too messy a subject. There is a > > >
    > secondary literature, eg. the Penguin Dictionary of > > > Biology,
    > where you can look up definitions, but these > > > are designed for
    > first-year students to get to grips > > > with the terminology,
    > rather than being any 'official' > > > definitions. > > > > Thanks. >
    > > > > Biology is indeed a messier subject than physics or maths, > >
    > so I agree that I should not expect all the exactitude I > > would
    > find in those fields. > > > > Dawkins seems to have already considered
    > the first-year > > students and other members of his wider audience,
    > and > > provided a glossary at the end of his book _The Extended > >
    > Phenotype_. The full entry for the word "replicator" reads: > > > >
    > "REPLICATOR: Any entity in the universe of which copies are > > made.
    > Chapter 5 contains an extended discussion of > > replicators, and a
    > classification of active/passive, and > > germ-line/dead-end
    > replicators." (p. 293) > > > > His definition is very broad, extending
    > beyond biology and > > into other fields such as the social sciences
    > and indeed, > > even into physics. > > > > --Aaron Lynch > > > >
    > Thought Contagion Science Page: > > http://www.thoughtcontagion.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 >
    >
    > _________________________________________________________________ Help
    > STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
    > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 06 Aug 2003 - 02:46:32 GMT