Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:40:05 +0000
From: Bruce Howlett <bhowlett@metz.une.edu.au>
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Doing the neural walk
--------------07FCAF00E2B5BA9481A3B600
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I think you have nailed it this time Derek. I know that I am sometimes overly simplistic in my perceptions and understanding, but it always seemed
unlikely that a specific meme could be identified as residing in a specific physical location in a host's brain. However, from Derek's graphic
description of the complex neural activity involved in a finger click, I am now convinced that memory items, just as other brain activity, are
patterns. How these patterns work physically I will leave to the neural scientists.
BMSDGATH wrote:
>It may be very difficult to work out
>neurologically whether a given identified neural pattern is specific for
>playing the piano, or for making a rude sign.
Again, a pattern.
>Even if one could identify this array of hundreds of thousands of neurons,
>there is no guarantee that it would be the same hundreds of thousands in
>the brain of two different individuals.
Of course not, but the pattern could be the same or similar.
>Some afferent pain signal was inhibiting my motor output.
Maybe another pattern acting as a filter?
In support of the pattern concept, I quote John Wilkins, although I disagree with his conclusion.
>I've never been fully convinced by the Private Language Argument. It broadly
>goes: language and meanings are defined by their public use; therefore private
>use can not be meaningful as there is no criterion for checking that the
>"words" are used correctly.
Words are sound patterns, Ok, so what is wrong with shape patterns or light patterns as an alternative internal language?
>However, this is a purely functional account of
>meaning which ignores the fact that signaling modules evolved over time, and
>so may operate both from phyletic heritage in the absence of social stimuli
>and also may operate internally, shadowing, as it were, the dynamics of a
>public language. In other words, evolution and environment both make it likely
>that we can have interior monologues. The problem (and point of the PLA) is
>that this persists only for a limited time: a feral child never acquires the
>specifics of grammar beyond that of a chimp or gorilla, although many feral
>children will generate their own grammar.
This may have some relation to the hippocampus as mentioned by Derek:
>>the hippocampus does not seem to be a storage area but something which is
>>required for the establishment of memory.
>So extant languages will not persist
>if we all became Crusoes permanently (we'd lose the grammars specific to those
>languages eventually - imagine a Methuselah stranded on a planet alone: what
>would that person use as language in a thousand years or so, assuming
>neo-Hebbian memory?), and selection in favour of the signaling behaviours we
>call language use is required to make interior monologues possible. So, I'm a
>reconstructed Wittgesteinian. However, as a matter of literary exegsis, no,
>Tourette's monologues would not be private languages. As an aside, have a look
>at the character called Mrs Tachyon in Terry Pratchett's book _Johnny and the
>Bomb_ for this sort of monologue.
I understand John to be saying that language patterns would be lost. I fail to see how that implies a loss of cognitive thought processes. Even
horses can think.
When researching NLP last year I accidentally came across the Natural Language Processing Laboratory at the University of Massachusetts simply because
they were using the same acronym. They have two fascinating projects that would interest most memeticists. The BADGER Sentence Analyzer and CRYSTAL
Automated Dictionary Construction. BADGER uses a conceptual analyzer and produces semantic case frame representations for input sentences. In other
words, it uses a pattern of words with a known meaning to identify the meaning of the input sentences. Isn't this what humans do? CRYSTAL uses a
supervised machine learning technique to learn concept definitions automatically from examples. Here we are trying to cram multiple meanings into one
word! CRYSTAL simply learns concepts.
I think the most effective (contagious) memes are thought patterns that trigger an instant match in the new host, whether or not the match is
legitimate. The pattern match gives the host a feeling of confidence or knowing, as if it was something that came from whithin.
Regards,
Bruce,
--
Bruce Howlett. B.A.L., J.P.
Email: bhowlett@metz.une.edu.au
Researching: Management of Change in Organizations: The Culture Concept
at the University of New England
Armidale NSW 2350
AUSTRALIA
--------------07FCAF00E2B5BA9481A3B600
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I think you have nailed it this time Derek. I know that I am sometimes overly simplistic in my perceptions and understanding, but it always seemed unlikely that a specific meme could be identified as residing in a specific physical location in a host's brain. However, from Derek's graphic description of the complex neural activity involved in a finger click, I am now convinced that memory items, just as other brain activity, are patterns. How these patterns work physically I will leave to the neural scientists.
BMSDGATH wrote:
>It may be very difficult to work out
>neurologically whether a given identified neural pattern is specific
for
>playing the piano, or for making a rude sign.
Again, a pattern.
>Even if one could identify this array of hundreds of thousands of neurons,
>there is no guarantee that it would be the same hundreds of thousands
in
>the brain of two different individuals.
Of course not, but the pattern could be the same or similar.
>Some afferent pain signal was inhibiting my motor output.
Maybe another pattern acting as a filter?
In support of the pattern concept, I quote John Wilkins, although I disagree with his conclusion.
>I've never been fully convinced by the Private Language Argument. It
broadly
>goes: language and meanings are defined by their public use; therefore
private
>use can not be meaningful as there is no criterion for checking that
the
>"words" are used correctly.
Words are sound patterns, Ok, so what is wrong with shape patterns or light patterns as an alternative internal language?
>However, this is a purely functional account of
>meaning which ignores the fact that signaling modules evolved over
time, and
>so may operate both from phyletic heritage in the absence of social
stimuli
>and also may operate internally, shadowing, as it were, the dynamics
of a
>public language. In other words, evolution and environment both make
it likely
>that we can have interior monologues. The problem (and point of the
PLA) is
>that this persists only for a limited time: a feral child never acquires
the
>specifics of grammar beyond that of a chimp or gorilla, although many
feral
>children will generate their own grammar.
This may have some relation to the hippocampus as mentioned by Derek:
>>the hippocampus does not seem to be a storage area but something which
is
>>required for the establishment of memory.
>So extant languages will not persist
>if we all became Crusoes permanently (we'd lose the grammars specific
to those
>languages eventually - imagine a Methuselah stranded on a planet alone:
what
>would that person use as language in a thousand years or so, assuming
>neo-Hebbian memory?), and selection in favour of the signaling behaviours
we
>call language use is required to make interior monologues possible.
So, I'm a
>reconstructed Wittgesteinian. However, as a matter of literary exegsis,
no,
>Tourette's monologues would not be private languages. As an aside,
have a look
>at the character called Mrs Tachyon in Terry Pratchett's book _Johnny
and the
>Bomb_ for this sort of monologue.
I understand John to be saying that language patterns would be lost. I fail to see how that implies a loss of cognitive thought processes. Even horses can think.
When researching NLP last year I accidentally came across the Natural Language Processing Laboratory at the University of Massachusetts simply because they were using the same acronym. They have two fascinating projects that would interest most memeticists. The BADGER Sentence Analyzer and CRYSTAL Automated Dictionary Construction. BADGER uses a conceptual analyzer and produces semantic case frame representations for input sentences. In other words, it uses a pattern of words with a known meaning to identify the meaning of the input sentences. Isn't this what humans do? CRYSTAL uses a supervised machine learning technique to learn concept definitions automatically from examples. Here we are trying to cram multiple meanings into one word! CRYSTAL simply learns concepts.
I think the most effective (contagious) memes are thought patterns that trigger an instant match in the new host, whether or not the match is legitimate. The pattern match gives the host a feeling of confidence or knowing, as if it was something that came from whithin.
Regards,
Bruce,
--