RE: Hymenoepimecis

From: Mark M. Mills (mmills@htcomp.net)
Date: Wed Aug 02 2000 - 00:08:51 BST

  • Next message: John Wilkins: "RE: Hymenoepimecis"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA22680 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:11:13 +0100
    Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000801170248.00ecb950@pop3.htcomp.net>
    X-Sender: mmills@pop3.htcomp.net
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
    Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 19:08:51 -0400
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    From: "Mark M. Mills" <mmills@htcomp.net>
    Subject: RE: Hymenoepimecis
    In-Reply-To: <A4400389479FD3118C9400508B0FF230040E89@DELTA>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Derek,

    Thanks for the comments.

    Derek said:
    At 09:01 AM 8/1/00 +0200, you wrote:
    >Derek:
    >I don't think there's a meme here because there is nothing cultural in the
    >system. ... I think it would be interesting to hear your
    >definition of 'culture'.

    Mark:
    Off the top of my head, culture seems to involve (in descending order of
    importance):
    a) a body capable of action
    b) a neural system with 'store,' 'recall,' 'chose' and 'stimulate action'
    features.
    c) intra-species imitation
    d) artifacts
    e) self-awareness. I hesitate to add this since I don't use it as a
    criteria. Based on many conversations, most people distinguish between
    'instinct' and 'culture' (whatever the terms might mean) based on
    self-awareness. If self-awareness fails to exist, then the individual
    cannot make 'independent decisions,' all their actions are 'instinctive.'
    f) language

    Maybe someone else can add a criteria.

    I'm sure there are many here who consider language (f) the key to
    culture. The emergence (invention?) of language becomes the start of
    'culture' and 'cultural' activity.

    Others use intra-species imitation. I probably fit in this group. Those
    using self-awareness and/or language as a criteria jump all over the word
    'imitation,' infusing the term with a human consciousness requirement.

    Culture is a difficult term for many to agree upon.

    I bought the example up because an artifact was involved, and artifacts
    produced by environmental stimulation (injection here) might satisfy those
    who use 'artifacts' as the prerequiste for culture. Obviously, this
    wouldn't satisfy those using (e) or (f).

    I was wondering how people would react to the spider example. Would it be
    seen as 'proto-memetic,' memetic, genetic, cultural or just weird. It
    seemed to me there was a connection. The nervous system was involved. An
    artifact was created, one entire abnormal to the usual life of the
    individual spider. At a minimum, the neural mechanisms reflected on
    memetic processes.

    Derek:
    > The spider's behaviour is a reaction to the environment, as you
    >say. For instance, when it rains I cover my head, but whether I do so using
    >an umbrella or a little hat made from a supermarket plastic bag (as we do
    >here in Glasgow) - that's the cultural thing. In humans there is both a
    >(instictive or quasi-instinctive) reaction to the environment, and also
    >cultural aspects, but in the spider it is difficult, or in fact impossible
    >I'd say, to identify anything cultural here.

    Mark:
    I think it would be useful for memetics to differentiate 'instinctive' and
    'quasi-instinctive' behaviors. How does one scientifically distinguish
    a 'cultural' behavior from an 'instinctive' behavior? The difference
    between memetic and genetic behavior?

    For me, the term 'genetic' is far too broadly used. I'd prefer using
    whatever is currently promoted by various international patent bodies (the
    usage follows the money?). I don't have any thing to quote, but suspect it
    is very narrow, involving a very high statistical correlation between DNA
    sequence and molecule product. The popular notion of a gene for every
    phenotypic feature is pretty meaningless. I doubt anyone will ever isolate
    a DNA sequence with a 99.99% correlation to left-handedness.

    If we narrow genetics to molecules, then we have more space to study the
    dichotomy 'instinct' versus 'culture.' It provides room to hypothesize
    self-organizing features of the neural system responsible for some of our
    instincts.

    Edelman talks about bird feather patterns in his book Neural Darwinism. He
    reports on experiments where restriction of specific neural chemicals
    produces radically different feather patterns. The feather pattern was not
    'carried' by the blocked chemical. It seems more reasonable to assert the
    system found a different 'stable' development point when the chemical was
    withheld.

    The difference between 'instinctive' and 'cultured' behaviors might simply
    be a slight different in 'stable' neural activity. The two kinds of
    behavior don't use independent neural circuitry. Research is not going to
    increasingly distinguish the two, they will tend to be blends.

    A narrow definition of the term 'gene' and 'neural meme' might help design
    experiments for understanding these dynamics. In this sense, the spider
    example might be an excellent place for the difficult work to see if
    something cultural is going on. There are a lot less moral trouble
    involved in study of living spider neural systems when compared to ape and
    human experiments.

    I wouldn't claim this was a 'highly cultured' spider in the traditional
    usage here, but it does seem that these spiders are being 'cultured' in the
    same way we use the term 'cultured' for 'cultured pearls.' The 'normal'
    neural dynamics are being altered to produce a predictable new
    behavior. I'm not entirely ignoring traditional usage.

    >Derek:
    > The hanging structure is not
    >non-genetic, merely non-normal in a healthy spider. The spider's activity
    >is best explained as perturbation of normal genetically-programmed instinct
    >by an environmental agent, the toxin.

    Mark:
    What 'cultured' behavior is not the same perturbation?

    It seems the wasp toxin is simply a crude way to perturb the neural system
    compared to the efficiency of language.

    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 : Wed Aug 02 2000 - 00:12:08 BST