From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: L- and G-memes.. the L/G dichotomy and associated meanings
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 05:23:56 +1000
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Rhodes <proftim@speakeasy.org>
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Date: Saturday, 19 June 1999 12:49
Subject: L- and G-memes (was: Re: Measuring Memes)
>I'm using the following thought experiment:
>
>Suppose we call both the instructions in the mind and the manifestations of
>them "memes". But we still make a distinction between the two in regards
to
>how the meme can mutate and what types of selection pressures will act upon
>it in either of those two forms. For simplicity sake, I'm going to call
the
>memes-in-the-mind "Lynch's memes" or L-memes and the
>memes-in-behavior-and/or-artifacts "Gatherer's memes" or the G-memes.
>(Despite that fact that this will probably result in shouts of disgust from
>both Aaron and Derek. :-)
>
So we have a dichotomy of L/G where L is gene-like (genotype - the one) and
G is expression-like (phenotype - the many) but you see them as 'the same';
the distinction is made to ease the description process...hmm..sounds
familiar... any undifferentiated form can be seen as a BOTH/AND form in that
all possible expressions occur at the same time but interference determines
what YOU perceive (which may be different to what I perceive).
>So, imagine that there can be no such thing as heredity between one L-meme
>and the next.
....so every L is unique, a 'sudden manifestion', a sort of 'miracle'...
'pure' randomness.. This is a mathematician's approach in that, taking lotto
as an example, every draw is totally independent of all previous draws;
context-insensitive.
And equally, there is no real heredity between G-memes and
>their descendants.
....what do you mean by 'no real heredity'? do you mean there are expressions
linked to a L-G that is 'similar' to that of another L-G but this is
coincidence?
In dichotomous analysis one 'rule' we find is that the moment you make the
distinction of an object, aka a whole, so a world of *internal* dependencies
emerge in the form of conservation laws. These are invarient and being so
would create patterns in each unique expression that would, under analysis,
suggest some sort of 'link' between expression X and Y. This link is in the
method of analysis, the objectification, and so not necessarily 'out
there'...
>But rather, that L-memes may be replicated (loosely)
>into G-memes and that G-memes may, in turn, be replicated (equally loosely)
>into L-memes.
This is standard dichotomy behaviour where one element can go through a
transformation into the other element. For example, using the fermion/boson
dichotomy, from bosons can emerge fermions and fermions can break-down into
bosons...
The template form is the object/relationships dichotomy, from relationships
can emerge objects and objects can break-down into relationships... We can
see your brain working here...!
So that we can never say that a meme is "passed down", but
>rather that in retains characteristics while undergoing a L-G-L-G-L-G
>transcription.
>
If a meme is seen as an object (a noun) aka a tRNA sequence then the
creation of that sequence comes from doing a cut'n'paste of relational
sequences (verbs) aka DNA sequences.
There is a term in linguistics that describes this process, it is called
nominalisation where a process (verb) is converted into a noun.
>Now, this might seem like a very small distinction, but I really don't
think
>it is.
It is not 'small', you are describing a fundamental process in the
development of categorisation using dichotomies, namely that there is a
sequence of events that imply that an object is not passed on to another
object directly but more that the relationships that make-up that object can
be/are.
There'll be a whole different set of rules governing the
>transcription of an L-meme into a G-meme than there would with be for
>transcribing a G-meme into an L-meme.
sure, relationships-to-objects (Many to One) is different than
object-to-relationships (One to Many)
For instance, if an idea (an L-meme)
>is changed into an action (a G-meme) the type selection pressures it
>undergoes--which will relate to why that idea was chosen for enaction over
>others--will be different than those in play when the witnessed action
>becomes stored in anothers memory (as an L-type meme).
....an object is 'seen' as a set of dynamic relationships (like a tornado).
Intent determines what you see and so seeing an object de-nominalised is
different than when the relationships are nominalised into anothers brain.
The generalisation of the Pauli Exclusion Principle would 'force' this since
all objects cannot occupy the 'same' space (but when seen as waves,
relationships, they *can*).
In the later case,
>issues of simple physical proximity, the focus of attention, or the seeming
>similarity to other memes previously transcribed may play a greater role in
>selecting which G-memes successfully make the change into L-memes than
>vise-versa.
>
IOW Context determines those relational elements that are combined to
transform into an object. Many leads into One. The path from One into Many
is different. Correct.
>And in the same way, the types of variations or mutations that take place
as
>an L-meme becomes a G-meme will be different in kind from those that occur
>as a G-meme becomes an L-meme.
Reverse transcription IS error-prone. Correct. This is different from Many
to One. (I think you just said this...)
And these differences would also, therefore,
>need to be acounted for in any future models of meme behavior.
>
>>From this point of view--seeing the memes as the characteristics that
>survive in different forms throughout the L-G-L-G (or for that matter
>"G-L-G-L") process--any arguments about whether a meme resides in the brain
>or is actually in the behavior, would appear similar to a debate about
>whether the hydrologic cycle begins with mountain rains or ocean
>evaporation. (And as such, ultimately just about as useful to boot!)
>
>I also think this viewpoint has certain implications about fidelity though
>the L-G-L-G cycle and what characteristics we should expect to see
surviving
>the process successfully. But my ideas in this area are still even more
>rudimentary and less thought out than the mess I've presented you with
>above.
>
Skip the symbols and just look at the method of analysis, dichotomy-biased.
When layed-out it tells you what you will find simply because all meaning is
contained within the method, BUT this level is too general, it is a template
and so serves to guide the process of particularisation that can follow. We
need to develop a set of axioms... some given below after you consider this
where the idea is...
"..to present an axiomatization (axiom system) of [Information Processing].
Such a system is a *nonlogical* axiom system [AKA cognitive analysis]. It is
a systematization of the truths (ordinary scientific or mathematical truths,
not logical truths) of some discipline, usually some branch of mathematics
or science. The systematization is obtained by, as it were, compressing all
the truths about the subject matter into a finite (or recursively
enumberable) set of axioms. In a certain sense, they are supposed to tell
you everything there is to be told about this subject matter. Such an
axiomatization, if complete, will give you an overview of the entire field
in question. If you have reached in your investigation into this field a
complete axiom system, then the rest of your work will consist in merely
teasing out the logical consequences of the axioms. You do not any longer
need any new observations, experiements or other input from reality. It
suffices to study the axioms; you no longer need to study the reality they
represent." Hintikka, J.,(1998)"The Principles of Mathematics Revisited"
CUP p1
So, based on the neurology/psychology research here are some 'axioms' (rough
.... need polishing :-)):
1. All information is presented and processed as objects and relationships.
2. All objects can be initially interpreted as either wholes or parts.
3. All relationships can be initially interpreted as either static or
dynamic.
4. The presence of neurological hierarchy ensures that the interpretations
given in 2 and 3 can oscillate where a whole can be seen as a part and visa
versa just as a static relationship can be seen as a dynamic relationship
and visa versa.
5. Objects result from the summing of relationships. (IOW relationships are
required to transform - objects cannot 'appear' out of nothing -- but can be
seen to do so if you are unaware of existing relationships - the 'miracle'
phenomena)
6. Relationships require the presence of objects for their identification.
(5/6 manifest the foreground/background, text/context oscillation)
7. The perception of objects-only creates the experience of 'jumps' where
there is at any moment (!) either 'this' object or 'that' object; there is
no 'middle'.
8. The perception of relationships-only creates the experience of a
'continuum' where there is at any moment no absolute distinction of 'this'
from 'that' since all is connected. At best there are indications of
patterns. (which, when we put the characteristics of 7 and 8 together, lead
to the identification of 'objects').
9. Within a particular level (see 4) there is a definite development path
from the declaration of an object to the analysis of that object's harmonics
in the form of internal and external aspects that are considered as parts of
the object.
10. From 9 it follows that the analysis of an object can lead to the
identification of that object as an illusion resulting from the random (or
intentional) summing of relationships. (e.g. a Tornado)
11. The iterative application of the object/relationship dichotomy can lead
to the emergence of implied wave interference patterns when the situation is
such that either the order of each pair of events is immaterial
(equivalence) or the order of each pair of events is indeterminant. For
example, in mathematics the expression A + B = C is equivalent to the
expression B + A = C. There are two expressions for the same thing and these
are 'compressed' into the one semantic space.
For indeterminance, given a dichotomy of lef/right where the choice is
'left' or 'right', if for each *paired* set of choices (four outcomes,
LL,LR,RL,RR) indeterminate states are symbolised as LR and RL so these
states are 'compressed' into the one semantic space.
When the results of six or more of these trials are taken and graphed, a
wave interference pattern emerges as a result of the method and not
necessarily a manifestation of wave patterns 'out there'.
12. Human intent determines what one sees. If the initial context is
determined to be object oriented or relationships oriented then this initial
context sets the theme for all that follows and this can lead to an
increasing degree of confusion if the initial intent/determination was
incorrect. (this can lead to big problems when this has gone on for years .
much shoring up of theories etc when a paradigm shift comes along)
13. There are a set of fundamental patterns of emotion that underly the
'object' and 'relationship' terms. When these terms are broken down into
their primary dichotomies (whole/parts, static/dynamic) these patterns of
emotion manifest the unconscious process of describing the elements of these
dichotomies in terms associated with the concept of mixing:
Whole -- the emotional pattern associated with the feeling of 'blending' or
'oneness'
Parts -- the emotional pattern associated with the feeling of 'bounding',
create a boundary (this from that)
Static relationships -- the emotional pattern associated with the feeling of
'bonding', to explicitly stick together.
Dynamic relationships -- the emotional pattern associated with the feeling
of 'binding', to implicitly stick together.
When adding the text/context dichotomy a set of fundamental symbols emerge
that when fed back upon each other form a group of symbols capable of
forming the basis for a degree of sophisticated communication. Repeated
feedback leads to the emergence of more complex 'feelings' that can serve as
'fundamentals' from the level within which they emerge.
14. The emergence of the wave metaphor leads to the inclusion of 'resonance'
concepts where objects of the same 'type' can be set to resonate thus
demonstrating a wave effect at work that goes to affect the manner in which
one or more objects receive information. This process allows for a 'carrier'
wave to be used to 'slip-in' unwanted information to an object(s).
Enough for now :-)
best,
Chris.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
===============================================================
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