Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA10055 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:23:45 GMT Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010112165041.01c8b310@pop3.htcomp.net> X-Sender: mmills@pop3.htcomp.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 18:11:19 -0600 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Mark Mills <mmills@htcomp.net> Subject: Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia? In-Reply-To: <20010112134022.AAA27394@camailp.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.2 15]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Wade,
At 08:41 AM 1/12/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Yes, indeedy. Because regardless of all the hand-waving that goes on
>about how genes are 'kind of mildly defined and sort of a descriptional
>model', the plain fact is that right now we can say 'here's a gene in the
>cell and here's how it replicates', and, if the genetic/memetic model is
>ever going to fly, (and I, for one, would _like_ it to, but wishes ain't
>been horses yet), then some identification, on a similar level, has to
>happen.
As I read this, I see you asking two things,
1. How can one say "here's a neural-meme in a brain" (as here's a gene in a
cell)?
2. How can one describe neural-meme replication (as one can describe gene
replication)?
First, I think it fair to say genetics had been around for almost 100 years
before either question could be answered for genes. The logic of genetics
does not require the existence of corpuscular genes (beads on a
string). Our desire to 'have' bead-on-a-string images of genes probably
suggests something about our fundamental cognition process (and memetics),
but that's another story. I agree it would be nice to have empirical
evidence for answering the two questions, but they are not necessary.
Since Mendel knew genetics involves sperm, egg and a lot of wiggling
around, I guess I ought to describe analogous neural-memetic wiggling.
If you investigate the origins of 'neural tissue,' you will find that no
one knows how early neural tissue begins to function (exchange
electro-chemical signals). In chicken embryos, Hensen's node is one of the
first 'proto-organs' one can identify and it is making proto-neural
tissue. I asked a biologic electro-magnetic field researcher if anyone
knew if Hensen's node was functioning neural tissue and he laughed.
Brain research shows that neural tissue connection topology is largely
stochastic (ie, undetermined by genes). Somehow there are genetic
guidelines for macroscopic features, but the vast majority of neural
structure is the product of neural activity (self-organization). Nobel
prize winner, Gerald Edelman has written a theory for the emergence of
neural structure called 'neuronal group selection' (neural
Darwinism). Edelman suggests neural groups compete with other groups for
resources. The more successful the group, the bigger it grows. Poorly
formed groups wither and die. (See Edelman's books Topobiology and Neural
Darwinism)
In brief, the combination of limited genetic guidelines and neuronal group
selection provide a means of getting the 'blank' neural-memetic substrate
built.
At this point the nature versus nurture argument comes into the
picture. Some might say that the substrate is never 'blank' but always has
a bias (signal replication always involves error). Others would say a
baby's neural system is 'blank' at birth and simply waiting to record
experiences which then become habitual behaviors over time. Either way,
the 'blank' or 'relatively blank' neural substrate is populated during
development via signal exchanges between conspecifics and/or environment.
>And I'm willing to think, at this point, and with my far from extensive
>and admittedly layman's grasp of things, that, yes, there _should_ be a
>pattern of activity in the brain that can be shown to be a unit of a
>cultural behavior- I think that such patterns have been shown for
>perceptual and autonomic actions- and that an empirical science of
>behavioral cultural systems could be forthcoming that is not just a
>gameplaying and narrow analysis of data, but an experimental and
>predictive clinical tool.
I think we are a long way from something comparable to 'memetic
engineering' (inserting memes into living brain tissue), but the population
work is close at hand.
On field work, here is an example I came across recently:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/0101172
Title: Distribution of Traffic Penalties in Rio de Janeiro
This study found that roughly 20% of Rio drivers got 80% of the
tickets. The distribution followed Pareto-Zipf's law (power-law
distribution). Everyone has equal access to the traffic laws, especially
after getting a ticket, why not something more like a normal distribution
for getting tickets?
I also came across an article about word usage and power-laws:
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/Abstracts/00-12-068abs.html
Title:Two Regimes in the Frequency of Words and the Origins
of Complex Lexicons:Zipf's Law Revisited
Why do traffic tickets in Rio have a similar frequency distribution to word
usage? I think something neural memetic is going on. Lawrence mentioned
'ethics' a few messages ago, maybe word usage and ethical driving are
linked by Zipf's laws?
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 : Sat Jan 13 2001 - 00:25:19 GMT