Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA20735 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:28:53 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745BA2@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Who knew genes could get mean? Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:26:55 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Hi Chris,
There's the Kevin Bacon game as well isn't there (Gladwell actually defines
an important group of people in his 'tipping point' model as connectors,
people who are unusually well connected, or rather have particularly useful
connections in certain circumstances, and mentions this game). I'm not sure
about my Mao number, I've never sat and worked such things out. I would
guess it's around the average level.
As to the other point, well... I don't know.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Chris Lofting
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 1:39 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Who knew genes could get mean?
>
> Vincent, what is your Mao number? Mine is about 2 or 3. Thus all 2s are
> connected and they to all 3s, 4s etc etc
>
> (Mao # = number of connections required to get to Chairman Mao .. now
> abstracted to presidents, kings, queens, etc etc) if you know someone who
> knows someone etc The base number seems to be 7, IOW at lowest level only
> 7
> links to the top ... thus the Mao number can point to useful individuals
> to
> get a message across to the general population. This is the 'implicit'
> approach -- rumour etc.
>
> The link of identical twins is the same as that of likemindedness,i.e.
> correlation. Thus responses to stimuli are generally the same and so the
> perception of something 'magical'. Possible but not necessary. Pre-emption
> requires an internal map that can be used to predict choices of others,
> identical twins have it more or less hard-coded but then so do those who
> follow identical education patterns...
>
> I think the connection between memes and genes is in expression, there is
> no
> inbetween, one minute you are doing X and the next Y where Y has 'snuck
> up'
> on you. The gene behaviour is sourced 'in here', it is hard coded and so
> deemed 'instinct', meme behaviour is sourced 'out there' it is soft coded
> so
> we need a label that links instinct with 'out there' source... from the
> feedback comes a re-identification of memes now sourced 'in here' in that
> intent leads to their transmission.
>
> Chris.
> ------------------
> Chris Lofting
> websites:
> http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> > Of Vincent Campbell
> > Sent: Thursday, 21 December 2000 11:32
> > To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> > Subject: RE: Who knew genes could get mean?
> >
> >
> > I see what you're saying TJ,
> >
> > But, on your last point, twin studies are IMHO over-cited as evidence of
> > genetic influence because they focus on attributes real probabilities
> for
> > which are unknown e.g. twins raise apart marrying people with the
> > same name,
> > or doing similar jobs, or driving the same car.
> >
> > You could pick two people at random and find commonalities that
> > would likely
> > amaze them. For example, I heard once that in the UK at least,
> > you wouldn't
> > need to go back more than 150 years on average to find a common ancestor
> > between any two randomly selected people. (maybe that was in a piece by
> > Gould or Dawkins...)
> >
> > Instincts aren't memes, but maybe things that in individuals can be
> > influenced by memes e.g. the instinct to reproduce has to be supressed
> in
> > those attempting to enact certain ritualistic practices, such as being a
> > monk or nun. But importantly, instincts in such cases are supressed,
> not
> > removed, and genetically speaking only those who fail to control those
> > instincts will actually reproduce, and this of course happens quite a
> lot,
> > so the memes cannot wipe out the instincts.
> >
> > Memes are arguably counter-instinctual (is that a word?) from religious
> > celibacy to breatharian non-eating. That's partly how we know they're
> > memes.
> >
> > Vincent
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From: TJ Olney
> > > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 10:46 pm
> > > To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> > > Subject: RE: Who knew genes could get mean?
> > >
> > > Ah, do I see more dancing on pin heads here...
> > >
> > > Derek is right, instincts cannot be cultural and be instincts.
> > >
> > > Misy is right instincts form the templates for the most
> > primitive cultural
> > > constructs.
> > >
> > > What is not at all clear is whether Blackmore is right, that we
> evolved
> > > big
> > > meme capable brains in service to memes.
> > >
> > > I continue to contend that although successful memes might not have
> any
> > > big
> > > species survival advantage, they cannot have any big survival
> > disadvantage
> > > and be successful. It seems to me that this would be
> > especially true when
> > > survival of the species is threatened by environmental circumstances.
> > >
> > > If communication from host to host of an information pattern
> > constitutes a
> > > meme, then our DNA is memetic.
> > >
> > > If we require that to be a meme, it must be verbal, then DNA is not
> > > memetic.
> > >
> > > However, if we only require that it be a unit of cultural
> transmission,
> > > then
> > > to the extent that parts of our DNA are necessary for us as organisms
> to
> > > participate in cultures, then are not those bits of DNA memetic?
> Could
> > > not
> > > those be instincts?
> > >
> > > The mutual exclusivity is not all that clear to me. The mutual
> > > interdependency of genes and memes, on the other hand, is obvious.
> It's
> > > nature/nurture taken to as low a level as possible. Twins studies
> > > (identical
> > > twins raised apart) have done a rather remarkable job in demonstrating
> > > that
> > > many things that appear to be memetic are in fact hard-coded
> > potentials or
> > > proclivities with genetic foundations.
> > >
> > > TJ Olney
> > >
> > > On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Gatherer, D. (Derek) wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Derek:
> > > > I don't understand. How can an instinct be a meme?
> > >
> > > > I keep asking myself the question; "What selective advantage
> > do we have
> > > with
> > > > this ability to spread memes?"
> > > >
> > > > Derek:
> > > > Or in other words, what selective advantage is obtained by the
> ability
> > > to
> > > > communicate through language etc. This would seem to be self
> evident.
> > > >
> > > > Misy:
> > >
> > > > Evolution of thought is the concept, and therefore, most
> > importantly the
> > > > selective advantage conferred through the possession of a
> > given idea, or
> > > > thought, and those instincts that they may have evolved from?
> > > >
> > > > Derek:
> > > > No sorry, don't understand this at all. How do you propose that
> > > instincts
> > > > are cultural? If you can't answer that then surely you have to
> admit
> > > that
> > > > instincts are not memes.
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ===============================================================
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -- TJ Olney market@cc.wwu.edu Not all those who wander are lost.
> > > -- http://mp3.musicmatch.com/artists/artists.cgi?id=113&display=1
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ===============================================================
> > > 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 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 2b29 : Thu Dec 21 2000 - 14:30:22 GMT