RE: fitness and stability

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Feb 20 2001 - 16:22:52 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "RE: fitness and stability"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA14969 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:23:24 GMT
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C99@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
    To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: fitness and stability
    Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:22:52 -0000
    X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
    Content-Type: text/plain
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    >>Robin Faichney:
    > >>The difference between living and non-living entities is that, with
    > life,
    > >>we have stable items of information, as opposed to mere matter.
    >
            <Scratching at definitions yet again, it would appear that with
    life, what
    > we _don't_ have is stability, but rather the ability to fit, be maleable.>
    >
            It strikes me that there are two elements to this question of
    fitness and stability. One is the actual relevance of the phrase 'survival
    of the fittest' in the first place, whoever coined it, as it is actually
    tautological- what survives that is not fit and vice versa? What is the
    principle behind the use of that phrase that one is trying to invoke? (in
    other words what started this thread?)

            The second element is a question of time, and what constitutes a
    significant/legitimate period of relative stability. If one acknowledges a
    lack of absolute stability, what is the importance of any period of relative
    stability, however that is defined?

            It would seem reasonable to suggest that for biology, environmental
    change generally occurs at a slow enough rate to enable some organisms to
    remain virtually unchanged for long periods of time (e.g. bacteria in
    ice-packs etc.), and allow some organisms to have long periods between
    generations- surely this couldn't happen if environments changed very
    rapidly and in ways that couldn't be dealt with by behavioural changes in
    organisms.

            But with culture, and memes if they exist, the parameters of
    environment are more incohate at the moment to be able to judge what
    constitutes stability. It seems to me perfectly correct to talk about
    environmental fitness of memes, but what factors constitute environmental
    pressures on memes, IMHO, seems much more difficult at this stage anyway to
    pin down. This is particularly the case for things like popular phrases,
    whether mis-remembered or not, which whilst undoubtedly present are more
    difficult to discuss in terms of the factors that produced them as
    phenomena. Saying they were/are environmentally fit is descriptive not
    explanatory.

            Anyway, there's my tuppence worth.

            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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 20 2001 - 16:26:00 GMT