Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id FAA23773 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 16 Jan 2002 05:16:56 GMT From: <AaronLynch@aol.com> Message-ID: <11.20fd532b.297665a6@aol.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 00:12:06 EST Subject: Re: Modes of Transmission To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 113 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
In a message dated 1/15/2002 10:30:17 PM Central Standard Time,Joe Dees
<joedees@addall.com> writes:
Hi Joe.
It looks like you are listing media of communication, at least with regard to
the transmission of ideas.
Some very basic questions are:
1. WHAT is the replicator or WHAT are the replicators
2. HOW does the replicator (or replicators) replicate
3. WHY do some replicators replicate more than others do.
Questions 1 and 2 seem to be getting mixed together in recent threads, though
I have not read everything.
In answering question 1, there seem to be three very broad classes under
consideration:
A. Internal phenomena that might be called ideas and/or memories and/or
internal behaviors,
B. External behaviors, typically visible, audible, tangible, etc. with
the unaided senses
C. Artifacts.
All of A, B, and C are identified by way of abstractions, as discussed in
this excerpt from my paper Units, Events, and Dynamics in the Evolutionary
Epidemiology of ideas (http://www.thoughtcontagion.com/UED.htm):
BEGIN QUOTE
" Many of the conceptual and analytical tools used to consider thought
contagions also pertain to the various other kinds of cultural replicators,
though often with modification. Still, the similarities allow for scientists
to study a range of different kinds of cultural replicators. As with memory
items, one still needs abstractions to consider two behaviors or two
artifacts "the same." That means that one still needs to use abstractions to
view behaviors or artifacts as replicators. For example, it takes an
abstraction to say that two people both performed "the same" behavior of
tying a shoe. One does not mean that hands followed the exact same
trajectories over time, since no two people's hands are exactly identical.
Some hands have fewer than five digits, others have extra digits, while still
others have arthritic joints. Even for a single individual, the trajectories
followed in tying a shoe can vary dramatically, while the physiological state
of the hands and body also change from moment to moment and year to year.
What one calls "the behavior" of tying a shoe is recognized more for the
outcome of a secure bow made by one person than the specific behavior leading
to that result. People also learn different ways of tying a shoe:
single-handedly or left-handedly, while others learn to tie bows that have
slight topological differences such as a clockwise or counterclockwise twist.
Compounding the diversity is the huge variety of shoes and shoe laces. A very
young child needs a certain amount of experiential learning just to know that
a shoe-tying behavior is happening. Cultural replication can only happen with
respect to an abstraction, whether it involves internal memory items or
external behaviors and artifacts or any combination of them.
While a behavior such as tying a shoe is not itself a thought contagion, the
knowledge of how to tie a shoe with a bow does spread as a thought contagion.
The ease of untying a slip knot such as a bow would have given people
incentive to learn the knowledge of how to tie a bow from other people seen
doing it. As that knowledge spread in adults, parents had motives for
inculcating the knowledge into their children: doing so saved them from
having to dig terrible knots out of their children's shoelaces or from
dealing with shoes falling off of their children or from always having to
help the children with their shoes.
When artifacts are viewed as replicators, most involve brains at some point
in the causal pathway to forming new "copies." Bows tied in shoelaces do not
replicate themselves, and they are usually not even used for clues about how
to tie shoelaces. Instead, bows result from behaviors that result from stored
knowledge, with the behaviors playing an essential role in communicating the
knowledge from brain to brain. The bow as an artifact helps call attention to
the fact that there is a useful bow-tying behavior and knowledge of how to
tie a bow. The artifacts of bows, the behavior of tying bows, and the
knowledge of how to tie a bow all depend upon each other for propagation.
They all depend on the persistence of memory for preservation, as the bows
and the behaviors of tying them usually remain dormant while people sleep
with their shoes off and untied. " END QUOTE
In regard to ideas as replicators, the general question 2 of how the
replicators replicate includes both the media of communication and other
behavioral specifics. Under media of communication, you do indeed have such
things as showing, saying, writing, and picturing. With respect to idea
transmission, artifacts and behaviors can be media of communication. Along
with showing, saying, writing, and picturing, one might add signing (as in
sign language), and even some exotic, futuristic methods involving
micro-neurosurgery. If we could learn from osmosis, I would add that one too
:-)
--Aaron Lynch
===============================================================
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 16 2002 - 06:17:14 GMT