Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA01454 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 25 Sep 2000 21:54:28 +0100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000925153510.02652c30@popmail.mcs.net> X-Sender: aaron@popmail.mcs.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:47:27 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net> Subject: RE: First Appearances In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.0.20000922232741.01d16600@popmail.mcs.net> References: <LAW2-OE5UPSIk8LPB5J00000745@hotmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_155126027==_.ALT" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 12:17 PM 9/23/00 -0500, Aaron Lynch wrote:
>At 04:56 PM 9/22/00 +0100, Paul Marsden wrote:
>>Richard:
>>
>>I believe Dawkins first proposed that memes were internal mental
>>information. In The Extended Phenotype he revised his earlier definition
>>from The Selfish Gene. I used a similar definition in Virus of the Mind.
>>Paul:
>>
>>Yes - it is interesting that just as population genetics and molecular
>>genetics are two different models, so too is their a similar symmetry in
>>memetics (population) macro memetics, - and micro memetics that
>>operationalises the concept in a way consistent with the original coining
>>as genes of meaning, semantic nodes in Memory. An error in my opinion
>>would be to conflate the two.
>>
>>You might ask how the latter is Darwinian? Well, the Darwinian theory of
>>creativity involves the mutation, recombination, semanitic drift of
>>networks of genes of meaning to generate original innovations.
>>
>
>Paul,
>
>Richard is right to point out that Dawkins gave a clarification in The
>Extended Phenotype, but he had also introduced the word in 1976 by saying
>that "We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea
>of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation," later
>explaining that he meant imitation "in the broad sense." I think that the
>context created by the older words mimesis and mimetic may have played a
>role in generating expectations in some that external behaviors should be
>"memes" but internal information should not. The linguistic problem is
>that while one can in principle "coin" the word "mime" to signify a "unit
>of mimesis," the word "mime" is already taken, and assigned meanings
>outside of zoology and biology. So we could not go with a scheme where,
>for instance, an internal behavioral replicator (beliefs, ideas, memory
>items, viewed as "static" or as "processes") could be called a "meme"
>while an external behavioral replicator (visible ways of doing things, of
>using things, etc.) could be called a "mime." But having a mere linguistic
>quirk decide that there should be an "internalist" "memetics" but not an
>"externalist" "mimetics" is not an appropriate way for setting the course
>of scientific disciplines and specializations. Such a terminological
>imbalance (inequity?) may have played an underlying role in the rationale
>for using the same word for quite different kinds of replicators, and
>hence Tim's introduction of L-memes and G-memes--following much
>discussion, paper-writing, commentaries, etc. as many of us can still recall.
>
>As Wade announced earlier, another dictionary (the Academic Press
>Dictionary of Science and Technology) has come forth with a definition of
>meme, and again added to the great diversity of often contradictory forms
>that have sprung forth from Dawkins's 1976 book. Comparisons to the
>Cambrian explosion come to mind, but that may be a bit exaggerated. I
>would attribute this profusion of definitions not to an inherently high
>mutation rate for definitions, (i.e., low copying fidelity), but rather,
>to the 1976 book not explicitly stating an unambiguous definition--despite
>the book's many statements made about memes and ways to use the term. The
>dictionary does seem to be trying to contain the explosion of definitions,
>but I agree with Mark that their effort will probably not result in
>consensus on what the word means.
>
>To further answer Joe's original question, I am not aware of "L-meme" or
>"G-meme" being used in articles or books, although I have not done a
>thorough search.
>
>--Aaron Lynch
Incidentally, my own book Thought Contagion does not contain a technical
discussion of the definition of "meme" either. In 1991, I expressed the
technical definition in terms of intermediate neologisms as a
"homoderivative mnemon." The current source, where I give a definition not
containing any intermediate neologisms is
Lynch, A. (1998) "Units, Events, and Dynamics in Memetic Evolution."
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission, 2.
http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit/1998/vol2/lynch_a.html.
In that paper, "meme" is defined as "A memory item, or portion of an
organism's neurally-stored information, identified using the abstraction
system of the observer, whose instantiation depended critically on
causation by prior instantiation of the same memory item in one or more
other organisms' nervous systems."
--Aaron Lynch
===============================================================
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 : Mon Sep 25 2000 - 21:55:38 BST