Re: Morphic memes

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sat Aug 11 2001 - 07:03:53 BST

  • Next message: Wilkins@wehi.EDU.AU: "Re: Logic + universal evolution"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id GAA16072 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 11 Aug 2001 06:59:51 +0100
    From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 01:03:53 -0500
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: Morphic memes
    Message-ID: <3B748479.1169.151ED0B@localhost>
    In-reply-to: <004b01c12228$fbb58ca0$9e24f4d8@teddace>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On 10 Aug 2001, at 22:46, Dace wrote:

    > From: Scott Chase
    >
    > > >When he first coined the term, Dawkins located "memes" in the
    > > >brain. If the brain is reducible to genes, then memes are
    > > >functions of genes. But if
    > the
    > > >brain is informed by past, similar brains, then memes are patterns
    > > >of neurotransmission that follow habitually from previous, similar
    > > >patterns.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > Well, if there is a social heredity or means of cultural
    > > transmission, whether Dawkinsian memes or the noogenetic/noetic
    > > patterns of Julian
    > Huxley
    > > (somewhat following in the footsteps of Teilhard), the brain could
    > > be informed by past "similar" brains without the spooky MR
    > > principle. This means of social heredity need not be tightly leashed
    > > by genes either.
    >
    > This doesn't tell us anything about memes, which are units of culture
    > that propagate under their own power. Yes, phrases, ideas, and tunes
    > are transmitted through the usual cultural channels. But what is it
    > that makes one tune "catchy" while another is dead on arrival? I'm
    > suggesting that the terrain of competition between tunes is in their
    > degree of resonance with our pre-existent musical sensibilities.
    > Ideas propagate under their own power to the extent that they appeal
    > to our intellectual orientations. Tunes and ideas are manifest in the
    > brain in terms of arrays of neurotransmission. I'm assuming that
    > whatever we think is in some sense a neurological event. So the
    > resonance of memes with pre-existent biases plays out synaptically.
    > Genes are involved in this process only to the extent that they
    > predispose us to one kind of music, for instance, over another, such
    > as classical over pop or vice versa.
    >
    > It all depends on whether memory is defined morphically as the
    > resonance of current structures with past structures or materially as
    > the storage of information. If it's the former, then brains are built
    > through resonance with previous brains. If it's the latter, then
    > brains, despite encoding personal memories, are themselves expressions
    > of genetic memory. So memes are reducible either to resonance or
    > genes. There's no in-between.
    >
    This is so reductionistically oversimplistically flawed that I hesitate
    to even address it, for it may not even rise to the status of
    significance to even be considered wrong, but the major wirings of
    brains (including human brains) are constructed according to a
    process that is set in motion and regulated by a genetic template.
    The experiential wirings are just that - growth responses (with the
    MAP-2 protein, produced in response to the electrical stimulation
    of a pathway being used, promoting both dendritic/axonal
    canalization via myelinization, and the frowth of new dendritic
    interconnections). In other words, there are (at least) two phases
    of brain construction, the first being genetic, and the second being
    environmental. Neither of these depend upon some woo-woo
    magical mystical morphic omm-shalla resonance. The tendency of
    minds to select for the familiar and reject the dissonant, based
    upon prior experiential learning, is readily explainable by the
    memetic concepts of hooks and filters.
    >
    > Ted Dace
    >
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 : Sat Aug 11 2001 - 07:04:06 BST