Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 19:23:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Valla Pishva <vpishva@emerald.tufts.edu>
Subject: Re: Replicators, was Non Homuncular Memetics
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Aaron Lynch wrote:
>
> I don't know of any studies regarding difficulties of changed or disavowed
> religious convictions versus age.
While I havent heard of any controlled studies either, groups like the
amish and luddites seem to have been pretty successful at passing on their
defining memes as a result of rearing. If youve ever had an argument with
someone who seems to have been innoculated against changing their mind on
something (religion or not) you know how engrained memes can get- Im only
suggesting that there may be an "impressionable" period early in life,
like the critical age for language learning, but less set in stone.
> >facilitates them, and use that info to their advantage. Suppression
> >genes and green beard effects (something which I independently theorized
> >before learning of, Aaron :) ) might be examples, but I guess this might
> >be stretching it.
>
> Looks like we have something in common in theorizing first, reading later!
> I'd say it raises the likelihood that you will theorize something that no
> one else has theorized yet.
Thanks for the encouragement, my ego hopes your right :)
>
>
> Classes of replicators can be defined in terms of their material
> (information storage) substrates, but this does not rule out isomorphisms
> between the systems of abstractions used to describe the replicators.
> Consider, for instance, changing the substrates of "digital logic."
> Substitute N-type silicon for P-type silicon, and vice versa and reverse
> the power supply voltages. You can then build a whole network of these
> deviant computers, and discover that all sorts of things such as computer
> viruses exhibit abstract isomorphisms to the original network. Still, the
> lack of isomorphism between DNA replicating in paired chromosomes and memes
> replicating in brains forces us to avoid any attempt to build memetics on
> forced metaphors and analogies. The metaphors and analogies make nice
> inspirations and starting points, as well as pedagogic tools. But the
> science itself should be expressable without them. Forced metaphors in the
> face of non-isomorphism have also caused serious scientists to have an
> immune reaction to memetics.
So it seems there are physical isomorphisms and abstract ones. I think
the lack physical combined with the presence of abstract ones might be
part of what forces a paradigm shift.
>
>
> --Aaron Lynch
>
> http://www.mcs.net/~aaron/thoughtcontagion.html
>
> ===============================================================
> 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