RE: DNA Culture .... Trivia?

From: Mark Mills (mmills@htcomp.net)
Date: Thu Jan 11 2001 - 17:41:50 GMT

  • Next message: William Benzon: "Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA05035 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:46:42 GMT
    Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010111105525.01c97a40@pop3.htcomp.net>
    X-Sender: mmills@pop3.htcomp.net
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
    Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:41:50 -0600
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    From: Mark Mills <mmills@htcomp.net>
    Subject: RE: DNA Culture .... Trivia?
    In-Reply-To: <A4400389479FD3118C9400508B0FF230010D1A12@DELTA.newhouse.ak zonobel.nl>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Derek,

    Rather than do extended quoting, I'll summarize the points of importance
    from your previous post.

    First, I'll note that you vigorously dispute any attempt to use the
    neural-meme paradigm. As you point out about 2/3's of the way through your
    post, one of two advantages of the substrate-free-meme is it saves various
    scientists from "spending the rest of our lives looking for neural memes
    that don't exist."

    In reply, I'll only say I continue to find the neural-meme paradigm of
    great interest.

    Second, you make a case for the substrate-free-meme. It consists of two
    advantages. The first, I've mentioned above. It saves time by ignoring
    what might be a dead end. Second, it "integrates memetics into the
    mainstream of the social science."

    In reply, these seem very weak arguments. If the first was followed, 'save
    time,' very little new science would be produced. As to the second, I see
    little interest in 'integrating' memetics' from the social sciences. As
    Bill Benzon points out, one can't earn respect from social sciences by
    twisting word definitions without adding insights.

    Third, your comment about a one to one relationship between neural meme
    and a behavior misunderstands the paradigm. To quote your post: "There's
    absolutely no reason to assume a '1 behavior = 1 brainpattern model.'

    The '1 to 1' relationship is not a requirement of genetics, or by analogy
    neural memetics. If we look at the way the term 'gene' is used, we have
    DNA defined genes and population defined genes. The first has a specific
    chemical sequence, the second remains physically undescribed, being a
    statistical reality. We generally describe the DNA defined gene as having
    a one to one relationship with a specific product, but the strict 1 to 1 is
    not always the case. DNA is not a series of genes strung together like
    beads on a string. Everyone agrees the 'population defined gene' defines a
    variety of DNA sequences which produce some phenotypic isomorphism
    (arbitrarily set for research purposes). Thus, in genetics, there is no
    hard and fast '1 chemical product to 1 DNA pattern' rule. Instead we have
    a 'many to one' relationship, with only the simplest organic molecules
    approaching a '1 product to 1 DNA sequence' relationship.

    The same logic can be applied to neural topology. There is no reason to
    expect any 'one to one' relationship between neural topology and
    behavior. Only at the most fundamental levels will any one to one
    relationships between neural topology and behavior be found. Just as in
    genetics, these fundamental behaviors ought to be building blocks for
    macroscopic phenotypes such as 'left handedness' or saying 'hello.' These
    macroscopic behaviors will be very difficult to define topologically, just
    as 'tendency to cancer' is very difficult to define topologically on DNA.

    As to 'fundamental behaviors' with something approximating a 1 to 1
    relationship between neural topology and behavior, one would expect these
    to be the intercellular behaviors, perhaps the replication of a signal by
    cell A from cell B to cell C.

    To summarize, an objection to neural memes because it would be impossible
    to find '1 behavior to 1 brainpattern' misinterprets the model. The 1 to 1
    rule is not implied, nor a necessity demanded by the genetic analogy.

    Mark

    http://www.htcomp.net/markmills

    ===============================================================
    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 Jan 11 2001 - 17:48:10 GMT