Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971008200329.0070cffc@popmail.mcs.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 20:03:29 -0500
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net>
Subject: Re: Replicators, was Non Homuncular Memetics
In-Reply-To: <199710082021.PAA00453@dns.night.net>
Aaron Lynch responding to Mark Mills:
>Aaron writes:
>
>>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.
>
>I like your focus on substrates and isomorphisms.
>
>The warning about isomorphisms between substrate class is intriguing. It
>brings up the issue of 'performance' in regards to 'replication.' We use
>a statistical inference about system performance whenever we talk about
>replication. For example, one copies a computer file from one hard drive
>to another via network cable. At the user level, the 'file' has been
>replicated at the end of the 'copy' operation. Successful 'replication'
>is tested by 'operating' the file. If it works, replication has taken
>place. At the physical level (magnetic coating of hard drive plate), no
>replication has occurred. The 'copy' function makes no attempt to place
>the file in particular harddrive sectors. A physical copy is sometimes
>used for backup requirements, but never for simple file copies. This too
>is judged a success based on system performance under specific test
>circumstances.
>
>Thus, whenever we talk about replication, we are relying upon some sense
>of 'system' definition, and testing technique (circumstance, frequency
>domain and performance standards). Sometimes these are explicit, other
>times, they are left unspoken. I suspect some of the difficulty we face
>here is a lack of consensus upon these sometimes unspoken assumptions.
>
>>Still, the lack of isomorphism between DNA replicating in paired
>>chromosomes and memes replicating in brains...
>
>Based on the above, I suspect our assumptions about system definition and
>testing differ considerably.
Thanks, Mark.
I'm not sure from the above what the differences are between our
assumptions about systems and testing. But when you consider how strong a
term "isomorphism" is, I doubt that you will find isomorphism between
diploid, triploid, etc chromosomal DNA, and memes. Us diploids, for
instance beget monoploid organisms, which then fuse into diploid organisms.
I'd say that this differs considerably from the "life cycle" of memes, and
causes serious differences between population genetics and population
memetics, particularly as regards recombination.
>Mark
>
>===============================================================
>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
>
>
--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