Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA18166 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:23:23 GMT Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:12:45 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: fitness and stability Message-ID: <20010221091245.B11074@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C99@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C99@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 04:22:52PM -0000 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 04:22:52PM -0000, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> >>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?)
It was an early attempt at a soundbite -- not a scientific law, but a meme
the side-effects of whose success would, hopefully, be more beneficial
than detrimental, leading people gently in the correct direction.
It has been widely recognised for a long time now that it's tautologous.
This does not _necessarily_ mean that it has no pedagogical role to play,
but I would acknowledge that role would have to be rather limited.
By the way, the thread did not start with that phrase, but with the
word "fit", and I invoked the phrase to give it some context.
> 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?
In the most general sense, it is not predictive, merely descriptive:
a thing is stable as long as it survives. In particular contexts, where
we know which features distinguish the long-livers, we can differentiate
between more and less stable existing entities, and don't have to wait
for them to die, to identify the less stable ones. But this strategy is
not open to us at a high level of abstraction, such as when discussing
the most basic principles of evolution, because it requires specifics.
> 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.
That's right. Though there are countless examples of genetic stability.
This does not require ice-pack-type environments.
> 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.
Absolutely.
-- 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 Feb 21 2001 - 09:28:26 GMT