From: "Paul Marsden" <PaulMarsden@msn.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Is a meme a thing?
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:17:07 -0000
Jay Hanson wrote:
>>Dawkins: "a meme should be regarded as a unit of information residing in
the brain".
"Is a meme a thing (or collection of things), or is it an abstraction (or
property, or idea)?"
The answer to this question is that (as Bruce says) it all depends on a)
what you mean by an abstraction, b) a thing, and c) most importantly how you
conceptualise the memetic enterprise. A quick review of the postings to
this list should reveal the various schools of thought that are emerging and
I would suggest reading Nick Rose's JoM paper controversies in meme theory
as a good introduction.
I personally follow the lead of Dawkins in deferring to Cloak in this
matter. Cloak states that a meme is a cultural instruction, which he
defines as a behaviour and a cue, and which is stored informationally in our
CNS. Now I think Nick finds it more useful to think of a meme as the
information that is stored in the brain, Derek operationalises this through
the behaviour that is elicited, and I take a wishy washy stance in the
middle, and say that a meme is simply the relation between the behaviour and
its cue, i.e. a functional property - an instruction in the functional
sense. This is because I find it is more helpful (and less onerous in terms
of having to invoke all sorts of paraphernalia necessary for the definition
to stand on) to think of a meme simply as a heuristic, rather like an
intention, it doesn't exist as anything else but the relation between two
things, but is useful in understanding interaction.
Without sounding too much like a pragmatist, the exciting thing about a new
enterprise such as memetics is that there is room for diversity - whilst we
continue to generate interesting results and insights memetics will grow,
whatever conceptualisation is preferred. Aaron, Mario and others have very
different understandings to the three different concepts mentioned above,
but we are all interested in the evolutionary dynamics of non-genetic
transmission in social agents - within that broad remit I would endorse
Rogan Jacobson's (from last years Meme conference in Namur) inclusive
definition of a meme , as the locus of the point of research within an
evolutionary framework.
Paul Marsden
Graduate Research Centre in the Social Sciences
University of Sussex
e-mail PaulMarsden@msn.com
tel/fax (44) (0) 117 974 1279
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission:
http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit/
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Howlett <bhowlett@metz.une.edu.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: 22 January 1999 21:06
Subject: Re: Is a meme a thing?
>Jay,
>
>I noticed the spectacular lack of response to your question, so I will
>venture a reply as I have no academic or public reputation to worry
>about.
>
>Yes. A meme is a thing in that the definition of *thing* includes a
>*concept considered as being a separate entity*. The question as to
>whether a meme is a meme when it is written on paper or in other coded
>form is often hotly debated. The more accepted definition of a meme
>includes the ability to replicate as the major criterion. The argument
>goes along the lines that when a *meme* is isolated on paper or in
>digital form it cannot replicate, therefor it is not a meme. To be a
>meme, the host medium of a human brain must be involved.
>
>I prefer to think of a meme as a *thought pattern*, rather than just a
>*thought*. Therefor a thought pattern in transit could be identified as
>a meme is stasis. Many analogies have been made with biological
>phenomena such as a seed waiting to germinate.
>
>The other main argument revolves around identifying memes as summarised
>by list guru Paul Marsden:
>
><This distinction between replicanda (behaviour) and memes (symbolic
>representations (i.e. information)) is IMHO, useful but would it not be
>better if your definition explicitly referred to your conclusion as to
>whether the meme is a replicator or simply the replicated. (THE source
>of
>confusion)> (Subject: Re: Memes are Interactor Date:Wed, 8 Apr 1998
>12:08:40 +0100 From:"Paul Marsden" <PaulMarsden@email.msn.com>)
>He concludes:
><My working definition (comments and (constructive) criticism invited)
>defines memes thus:
>"MEME: a unit of sociocultural replication composed of a functional
>pattern
>of information whose selection in a given environment depends on its'
>relative fitness, where fitness is defined by the structural relation to
>the
>"ownership" of the means of transmission, and where "ownership" is
>defined
>by the relative power of sources of variation within that structure to
>determine the nature and direction of information flow.">
>
>Being in the *behaviourist* camp I am partial to this definition. You
>may have just restarted the definition war. Your question, however, was
>confusing because an abstraction can be a thing. I think you meant, is
>it *physical* or is it *abstract*? Depends on your perception.
>
>Tim Rhodes gives us another perception:
>
><A meme is not a configuration neuro-synaptic circuitry, it is _what
>results_
>from that configuration. Just as the same computer program can be
>written
>using several different types of code, so the same meme can be said to
>be
>held in different individuals (who hold the same ideas), regardless of
>whether or not they hold such ideas as a results of similiar synaptic
>links.
>
>Searching for the "location" of a specific meme in the brain is, as
>such, a
>fruitless task. Even if you could find the cluster of synapses
>responsible
>for a given meme in one individual, there is no guarantee that you will
>find
>the same cluster, in the same place, in another person who holds the
>same or
>similar ideas. Similar programs do not require similar code in
>different
>systems. (Or, indeed, even within the same system!)> (Subject:Re: List
>of meme definitions Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 14:06:37 -0700)
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Regards,
>
>Bruce.
>
>
>Jay Hanson wrote:
>>
>> Dawkins: "a meme should be regarded as a unit of information residing in
the
>> brain."
>>
>> Is a meme a thing (or collection of things), or is it an abstraction (or
>> property, or
>> idea)?
>>
>> Jay
>>
>> ===============================================================
>> 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
>
===============================================================
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