Re: Doing the neural walk

Robert G. Grimes (grimes@fcol.com)
Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:26:30 -0400 

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:26:30 -0400

From: "Robert G. Grimes" <grimes@fcol.com>

To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

Subject: Re: Doing the neural walk

--------------EA0769A20FC6FA26EABB8C47
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I like the outline that Mark wrote and think that he made a fine contribution.  But I'm still a little restricted.   I still have a problem as "everything is substance," in my terminology.  Charge is substance, osmotic pressures are substance,  words are substance (vibratory motion through an elastic medium, printed symbology, et al), etc. Still,   hopefully, we can work from this armature and into a paradigm, stance, cybernetic mode, meme construct, neural construct, etc., that we can all utilize.

For example, you will recall that we had a fairly good agreement that the communication symbology is the "meme seed" and that the complete meme itself is stored in the CNS in some fashion (now just wait a second, we can't solve all of neuroscience immediately) and for that reason would appear to  be unique in the individual.  Now, personally, I prefer the cybernetic analogues because, thus far, they appear to be closer to "reality" of the CNS functions - "The Society of Mind," etc.  But, as others have said,  it really matters not whether this is a "pattern" (very descriptive) of charges, neural associations or whether this resides in an equivalent of "RAM" (we know that we have recall or memory whereby we re-access or activate these equivalents of experience in our neural storehouse, and we can call "accessible storage" anything we want as long as we agree to the relationships).

Now, if we "see" a fellow wearing his baseball cap backwards  we have that experience in our storage medium, subject to all of our other associative and chemical influences that make our medium "us."  That experience may "resonate" (be patient) and we like it, "cool," and we adjust our baseball cap accordingly and "fit in."  This behavior or process is the evidence of the instantiation of the meme seed that we received (either by witnessing it, reading it, seeing it on television, hearing it in a song, imitating a cohort's behavior, etc.- meme seeds all).  Without the externalized evidence of behavior we cannot measure the diffusion of innovation (like we can the evidence of transistor radios to the ears of folks intently listening, all over the world, etc.- the transistor radio communication meme, etc.)

Now, we simply cannot register the evidence of the existence of the instantiation of the meme sans some kind of behavior, witnessing, demonstrating, or validating  the event, whatever the behavior we take as evidence.  But, there would be no behavior sans the neural equivalent, i.e., recalling the meme, feeling the "urge," sending messages to the motor effectors, etc., to "snap our fingers," tilt our cap, pledge allegiance, or place that transistor radio to our ear.

So, again, we have the behavior, the symbology, the code, the pattern, which results from the seed that we "internalize, flesh-out,  store, and react to in some fashion - depending on how such internalized symbology "resonates" in our storage medium with all its associative network.

Now, I have thought previously that we have agreed on the various types of "symbology" of the meme, i.e., either spoken words, printed words, music, paintings, sculpture, etc. some may be behavior, some may  be artifacts, all externalized symbology of the meme in situ which is residing in the CNS of the organism, the organism responding to this meme in situ, demonstrating the evidence of the meme in society by the activity or behavior and thus the diffusion of innovation.
 

Mark Mills wrote:

Derek
 The first time one learns a behavior there is neural
>activity and information storage of a certain kind.  But, with subsequent
>practice, that storage _changes its pattern_.  Which of these subsequent
>neural patterns is _the_ 'internal' meme?   This, in fact, seems to call
>the whole notion of internal neural replicators into doubt, the 'cerebral
>code' changes for a behavior within one individual's lifetime.
Yes,  again, we have the seed first, one cannot learn the behavior or idea sans exposure to the symbology, again, which may be any or many combinations of symbology, behavior, artifacts, etc.  The seed of the meme is stored and will be modified, "fleshed out" to some extent by each individual in their cognitive milieu, still it is "close enough for government work."  When the meme is activated, resonates, or is initiated it is translated into effectors which produce the meme seed, behavior, symbology, etc., again and the process is started again if the seed lands in fertile territory.
 Snip
Thus, there are 4 ways of defining the relationship between memes and
genes.

1. Both genes and memes are substance (substance model)
2. Both genes and memes are process (cybernetic model)
3. Genes are substance, memes are process (common hybrid)
4. Memes are substance, genes are process (unknown hybrid)

Hopefully, this frames the options.  Now, we can related our participants
here to the framework.
Snip

So, by the Socratic Method, I'm sort of forced into the genes are substance, meme seeds are process (cybernetic) but, again, my contention originally, I think, is that the meme in situ is substance.  After all, if I have a needle, thread and some cloth then I have substance and the "process" of sewing is the interaction of the substances (including the sewer or tailor) in a fashion that produces modified substance.  If I have neural substance, impose charges (sensory input which is substance), and get modified substance with the interaction between the participating substances, I have a "meme in situ," and can start the process all over again through the effector systems should I "will it," or should the meme in situ "spontaneously" create activity on activation (recall) and I "think" that I will it...

Whether you will accept my construct of that alternative is another thing as I still have the uncomfortable feeling (for me) that "process" means something different than the interaction and relationships between things of "substance."

Still, trying to express the "process" in different terminology may have value in itself...

Cordially,

Bob
--
Bob Grimes

http://members.aol.com/bob5266/
http://www.hotwired.com/members/profile/bobinjax/
http://www.phonefree.com/Scripts/cgiParse.exe?sID=28788
Jacksonville, Florida
Bob5266@aol.com      robert.grimes@mailexcite.com  Bobgrimes@zdnetmail.com

Man is not in control, but the man who knows he is not in control is more in control...

Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore....."
 

--------------EA0769A20FC6FA26EABB8C47
Content-Type: image/jpeg
Content-ID: <part1.35FE9533.8416FEB7@fcol.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\nsmailJU.jpeg"
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--------------EA0769A20FC6FA26EABB8C47--

===============================================================
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