RE: Who knew genes could get mean? Explication.

From: lhousego@axa.com.au
Date: Thu Dec 21 2000 - 23:34:33 GMT

  • Next message: Austin Docking: "Re: e-mail meme virus for someone who wanted it?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA21644 (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 22:41:53 GMT
    From: <lhousego@axa.com.au>
    X-Lotus-FromDomain: NMH@NMHEXT@NMHDMZ
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Message-Id: <4A2569BC.0080E553.00@c2.nm.com.au>
    Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:34:33 +1000
    Subject: RE: Who knew genes could get mean? Explication.
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Disposition: inline
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Explication:

    Coming from a systems approach, where I would like to remove biology from
    being a requisite component of memetics. Psychology and Biology is
    important, but only from a base infrastructure level for
    transmission/hosting in this view.

    It is likely that alternative infrastructures for memetic transmission and
    hosting can be created or evolve (selected?) or even already exist. It may
    be valuable to have a model of memetics that is independent of the
    underlying systems.

    TJ Olney <market@cc.wwu.edu> on 21/12/2000 12:42:24 pm

    Please respond to memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    cc:
    Subject: RE: Who knew genes could get mean?

    Nice point about information patterns that spread without any mental
    intervention. I would consider them memes. I tend toward the expansionist
    view and my pet peeve in this area is talk about memetics and memes and the
    scientific method, as if the scientific method were not memetic itself.

    The added value of memetics over other points of view seems to me to be the
    turning of traditional problems inside out to view them from the point of
    view of an information pattern that acts as if it has a motivation to
    replicate. It changes the focus from the more traditional model of having
    ideas that we choose to communicate or not. This switch then allows us to
    model the process differently, it allows us to ask questions differently.

    Unfortunately, as impressive as it sounds, and as much as I am inclined
    toward complex systems, I haven't yet been infected with this meme of
    "dynamic locus of stimuli to complex systems" Please explicate, it may be
    an
    accurate description, but I'm afraid my system is not receptive to it as
    is.

    TJ Olney

    On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 lhousego@axa.com.au wrote:

    > Perhaps another way of looking at a meme is that it is a dynamic locus of
    > stimuli to complex systems.
    > Classification then may not require as much "dancing on pinheads".
    >
    > Classification of different kinds of dynamic stimuli and their effects on
    > differing classes of complex systems can then be made independantly.
    >
    > Breaking down to DNA or not DNA, verbal or non-verbal is a bit ahead of
    the
    > game in my opinion. A computer virus for instance should definitely be
    > considered memetic, and does not rely upon interaction with verbal or DNA
    > systems. Modern channel marketing systems for music give a new Celine
    > Dion/Britney Spears song market spread before a human even hears it. This
    > should also be considered memetic, albeit very evolved and efficient.
    >
    > This is perhaps a little too expansive a view, and I would be interested
    to
    > hear what would be outside the definition of a meme.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > TJ Olney <market@cc.wwu.edu> on 21/12/2000 08:46:01 am
    >
    > Please respond to memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    >
    > To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    > cc:
    > 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.
    >

    **********************************************************************
    Important Note
    This email (including any attachments) contains information which is
    confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. If you are not
    the intended recipient you must not use, distribute or copy this
    email. If you have received this email in error please notify the
    sender immediately and delete this email. Any views expressed in this
    email are not necessarily the views of AXA. Thank you.
    **********************************************************************

    ===============================================================
    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 - 22:44:25 GMT