Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA01906 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:13:28 GMT From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:48:50 -0500 Message-ID: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMAMEMJCAAA.debivort@umd5.umd.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C51@inchna.stir.ac.uk> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Hi Vincent
To the extent the 'picture' changes, I think, the meme has lost fidelity.
Changes can occur at several points, including the way the 'idea' to be
transmitted in the meme is inaccurately embedded in the artifact that will
transmit it, the robustness of the artifact during transmission, the
perception of hte artifact by the recipient, and the ability to assimilate
the 'idea' itself by the recipient, where loss of fidelity can occur in
several ways. At least, this is part of the model of memes that I use.
- Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
Of Vincent Campbell
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 12:23 PM
To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
Subject: RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
<<CHRIS TAYLOR:
> You don't need Lamarck if you consider a shorter timebase where the meme
> you 'see' is not an entity but a succession of copies of itself (quick
> manifestation: the way ideas change in your mind over time). New
> 'mutants'/'hybrids' occur on a short timescale - I could really push it
> and use the analogy of animation blurring many things into one...>>
>
<LdB:
> I like your animation metaphor: one of the measures of the success of the
> meme is the fidelity with which the successive copies are made.>
>
> Only in animation the point is that each individual image (or model if
> stop-motion animation) is slightly different- that's how the illusion of
> motion is generated. The same thing of course is what's going on in film
> and television, but do any of these processes where distinct identifiabe
> change is what gives these forms meaning constitute processes of
> replication?
>
Vincent
===============================================================
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 : Fri Feb 09 2001 - 18:15:32 GMT