Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA22210 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:00:09 GMT Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 19:43:59 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Labels for memes Message-ID: <20010131194359.C541@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <20010131095329.D10942@reborntechnology.co.uk> <JJEIIFOCALCJKOFDFAHBAEJLCDAA.richard@brodietech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i In-Reply-To: <JJEIIFOCALCJKOFDFAHBAEJLCDAA.richard@brodietech.com>; from richard@brodietech.com on Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 07:21:18AM -0800 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 07:21:18AM -0800, Richard Brodie wrote:
> Robin,
>
> <<My point is that, understanding that meme as an item of information,
> a pattern encoded in his brain, you cannot then say that same pattern,
> differently encoded in the ad, is not the same meme. >>
>
> That's exactly what I'm saying. It's only a meme when it's in a mind.
Of course, you can take that view. "Meme" is only a word, and you can
use it any way you want. But my question is, now you understand that
we're not extending "meme" to cover any other replicator, what exactly
is the point of saying, when that information is in a brain it's a meme
but when it's encoded in behaviour it's not? (Depending on your
answer to that, this point may be addressed below.)
> << If it's the same
> pattern, it's the meme. Such is the numerical identity of information.>>
>
> By that reasoning, a box score printed in the morning newspaper is the same
> as last night's ballgame.
No, that's a false analogy. Only sufficient information to allow
perfectly complete recreation of a ballgame is the same as that ballgame.
The reason we say that behaviour encodes memes, is that it allows
imitation (recreation) of THE SAME behaviour.
> Why bother buying a ticket and a hot dog? You
> could just read the same information in tomorrow's paper. The answer is that
> when replicable information is in a mind it has different properties than
> when it's encoded in a TV broadcast signal.
Just as an insect grub has different properties from the adult form.
But they're the same insect, as we see when we take the long view.
Adult->grub->adult is a recognisable cycle, and when we think of the
insect in broad terms, it's the cycle that includes both forms that we
think of. Brain->behaviour->brain is the corresponding cycle for memes,
and when we think of a meme, unless for some particular reason we're
focusing on a particular stage, it should be the whole cycle we have
in mind. Otherwise, we don't have the full story.
> In particular, it has the
> ability to influence the behavior of the owner of the mind.
But behaviourally-encoded memes have the ability to get into the brains of
observers! And that is exactly equally important. What you're saying is
like "grubs aren't really important, that's just the intermediate stage".
You're asssuming that what interests you is all that matters. You need
to step back, be more objective. If the behaviour isn't interesting
enough to be watched and remembered, it has no chance of being repeated.
Its ability to get into a mind is perfectly complimentary to the
brain-encoded form's ability to get out again, into behaviour. There is
absolutely no way you can say one of these abilities is more important
than the other. Are chickens more important than eggs?
> I'm guessing you would claim that a graphic representation of the amino-acid
> sequence of a gene IS a gene. I would disagree.
No, I wouldn't say that. But if we could as easily create the actuality
from the diagram as the diagram from the actuality, then we'd have a
better analogy. And in any case, the information that diagram and
actuality share is what matters most about this whole thing.
> <<``Information'' is very closely related to ``form,'' and form is what
> two different things of the same type share. It therefore differs from
> substance, or matter, in that one item of it can occur in more than
> one place at one time.>>
>
> But a meme is substantial. In fact, one of the most interesting things about
> a meme is how many copies of it there are in different minds.
Memes are no more substantial than words. As for the notion that many
copies = substantiality -- words fail me.
-- Robin Faichney robin@reborntechnology.co.uk=============================================================== 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 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 20:02:05 GMT