From: Chris Taylor (christ@ebi.ac.uk)
Date: Wed 28 Jan 2004 - 13:40:54 GMT
Here's a nice simple one from my old supervisor:
P.G. Higgs. The Mimetic Transition - a simulation study of the evolution
of learning by imitation. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 276, 1355-1361
(2000).
Definition of terms isn't really the point of this paper, but it is
published in a non-memetics-specific journal, if that's what you were after.
His research interests page is
http://www.physics.mcmaster.ca/people/faculty/Higgs/HiggsPopGen.htm
For the record, my Ph.D. stuff is just below the meme bit (the MQT model
-- pleitropy, epistasis, quantitative trait evolution, demes, migration,
F1 vigour, F2 breakdown, speciation, all loads of fun). What the hell am
I doing in data standards now? That's the question that keeps me awake
at night (while I watch late night teevee).
Cheers, Chris.
Lawrence DeBivort wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> 'Memes' can serve as a unit of useful scientific analysis.
>
> Of course, one has to specify a definition. Like you say, Michael, the
> field of memetics has done a pretty poor job collectively of settling on a
> definition. As you say, Richard, a definition stands on its own, it is
> correct sui generis. The trick is to settle on a useful and interesting
> definition, a distinction that makes the difference. And then stick to it.
>
> Does anyone know of any published scientific study of memes?
>
> Cheers,
> Lawry
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
>>Of M Lissack
>>Sent: Tue, January 27, 2004 10:28 AM
>>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>>Subject: RE: meme as catalytic indexical
>>
>>
>>Richard:
>>
>>In your world the word token meme works. In the
>>scientific world it is so overloaded with conflicting
>>notions (including those expressed by Dawkins himself)
>>that it is next to useless as a unit of analysis. My
>>article is an attempt to help the field advance. Your
>>postings seem to indicate that you are opposed to the
>>idea that the field needs to advance.
>>
>>You have a distinguished resume but you are not an
>>academic nor a philosopher nor a true scientist. To
>>refer people to works of years ago and say you "have
>>done all you can" is to ignore all of the work and
>>efforts that have gone on since those works you cite
>>were written. And I never recall asking for your
>>"help." I wrote an article, it was published, and
>>people are commenting on it.
>>
>>There is no established "definition" of a meme. There
>>is a loose collection of fuzzy notoions which all
>>share the label or word token "meme."
>>
>>Science does not advance by treating definitions as
>>given but by questioning always questioning
>>definitions.
>>
>>Your web site fails to point to much of anything post
>>the year 2000. Do you believe that all worthy work
>>(save your own postings) stopped then? Do you really
>>believe that a book you wrote more than a decade ago
>>was prescient enough to answer challenges raised after
>>the book was written?
>>
>>Yes I am challenging the "conventional wisdom." I am
>>not the first nor will I be the last. You as a self
>>proclaimed author of that "convention" are much more
>>interested in defending your territory than in
>>addressing the many questions which get raised here
>>and in other forums.
>>
>>So for the last time I ask you again to respond to
>>Bruce's challenges with something other than hubrus or
>>platitudes. If you have no interest in memetics as an
>>academic field fine. If you think Bruce has raised
>>unnecessary issues tell us why you think so. If you
>>think Bruce's challenges can be easily answered tell
>>us how to do so. If you think Bruce's challenges are
>>invalid tell us why. But stop answering by telling us
>>that you said all that in Virus of the Mind. You did
>>not and you could not because Bruce's challenges came
>>much later.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--- Richard Brodie <richard@brodietech.com> wrote:
>>
>>>M Lissack wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Richard you are ignoring the question. How do you
>>>
>>>know that
>>>
>>>>it is the meme that is the replicator rather than
>>>
>>>something
>>>
>>>>else being the replicator and the meme only being
>>>
>>>the sign?
>>>
>>>The very question indicates to me a basic lack of
>>>understanding of the
>>>scientific method. A definition cannot be right or
>>>wrong. It's simply a
>>>definition. Some definitions are more useful than
>>>others for building
>>>theories that explain and predict. "Meme" happens to
>>>be defined as a
>>>cultural replicator and a fair amount has been
>>>written about memes in the
>>>last almost 30 years based on that definition. Many
>>>people find the
>>>definition useful. Some do not.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Some ideas thrive some ideas do not. What is that
>>>
>>>>distinguishes them? What is the mechanism for
>>>
>>>their thriving
>>>
>>>>or failing?
>>>>
>>>>Sure you can cite many examples of ideas that have
>>>
>>>been
>>>
>>>>replicated but what is the cause of the
>>>
>>>replication?
>>>
>>>>Memes as replicator is an assertion that the meme
>>>
>>>is its own
>>>
>>>>cause for replication. Idea as "Final Cause"
>>>>if you will. But what distinguishes the causes
>>>
>>>between
>>>
>>>>successful and unsuccessful memes?
>>>>
>>>>When word meanings change over time have the memes
>>>
>>>changed,
>>>
>>>>failed, succeeded, or mutated and what
>>>
>>>distinguishes these
>>>
>>>>from the change in environment.
>>>
>>>As I said before, if you've read my book and are
>>>still asking questions like
>>>these I doubt there is anything else I can write to
>>>help you understand. I
>>>gave it my best shot at answering these questions in
>>>the 250 pages of Virus
>>>of the Mind.
>>>
>>>
>>>>You are happy with memes as they are. That is not
>>>
>>>what my
>>>
>>>>article or Bruce's challenges are about. If the
>>>
>>>world is
>>>
>>>>happy with memes as they are --- wonderful. But
>>>
>>>memetics is
>>>
>>>>presently not treated as science and lacks
>>>
>>>academic credence.
>>>
>>>> Without either credence or the "science" label it
>>>
>>>gets
>>>
>>>>little in the way of research attention or
>>>
>>>funding.
>>>
>>>Well, then, why don't you just redefine "funding" to
>>>be a catalytic
>>>indexical and then you can catalyze your own
>>>semiotically? ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>>Maybe memetics is fine but maybe it is like cold
>>>
>>>fusion or
>>>
>>>>the misapplications of catastrophe theory.
>>>>Your web site contains many stories but little in
>>>
>>>the way of
>>>
>>>>serious research. Some of us who think memetics
>>>
>>>could be so
>>>
>>>>much more find that to be an unacceptable state of
>>>
>>>affairs
>>>
>>>>for the field in general.
>>>
>>>My web site is for the general public. I believe the
>>>Journal of Memetics
>>>site has the serious research, such as it is, and I
>>>have a pointer to that
>>>site on mine for the academically inclined.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dawkins made an offhand remark when he coined
>>>
>>>"meme."
>>>
>>>>To treat an offhand analogy as the "word of god"
>>>>instead of as an initial idea worthy of research
>>>
>>>and subject
>>>
>>>>to change is to suggest that all memes can be
>>>
>>>subjected to
>>>
>>>>evolutionary forces except for the meme meme.
>>>
>>>My first wife used to complain sometimes that I
>>>wasn't considering her
>>>feelings when I made a decision she didn't like.
>>>Usually, though, I was
>>>considering her feelings but decided against them
>>>anyway. I think we have
>>>two problems here. First, I don't think you
>>>understand (or perhaps
>>>understand but disagree with) the pragmatic approach
>>>to the philosophy of
>>>science: that scientific theories are not True or
>>>False but useful or not. I
>>>conclude this based on my judgment that you are
>>>arguing that the established
>>>definition of meme is wrong. Second, I don't think
>>>you understand what
>>>Dennett calls the "intentional stance." Reading his
>>>"Darwin's Dangerous
>>>Idea" is a good way to familiarize yourself with
>>>that philosophical
>>>position. All replicator theory is based on that.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Memes as catalysts and memes as replicators differ
>>>
>>>mainly in
>>>
>>>>the notions of cause and of actors. All of the
>>>
>>>stories found
>>>
>>>>on your web site can be recast as meme as catalyst
>>>
>>>without
>>>
>>>>losing anything except these two notions.
>>>
>>>Sure. Reality can be described any number of ways.
>>>However, memes are not
>>>catalysts, they are replicators. If you want to look
>>>at information as
>>>catalyst it could be a very interesting perspective,
>>>but why confuse people
>>>by using a word with established meaning to denote
>>>something else?
>>>
>>>
>>>>I still await someone else to suggest an answer to
>>>
>>>Bruce's
>>>
>>>>challenges or explain why they should be rejected.
>>>
>>> Telling
>>>
>>>>me I have suggested that the word of god is wrong
>>>
>>>does neither.
>>>
>>>I think Bruce's challenges are great. I don't think
>>>anyone here but you used
>>>the term "word of god."
>>>
>>>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
>>>
>>
>>
>>__________________________________
>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
>>http://photos.yahoo.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
>
>
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Taylor (christ@ebi.ac.uk) MIAPE Project -- psidev.sf.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ =============================================================== 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 28 Jan 2004 - 13:53:07 GMT