From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: i-memes and m-memes
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 14:05:38 -0400
In-Reply-To: <37CABDB5.381601C9@pacbell.net>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Bill Spight
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 1999 1:22 PM
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: i-memes and m-memes
>
>
> Dear James,
>
> James:
>
> Bill... They are no longer memes, but they are still potentially
> memes. If I
> might be so arrogant as to quote from my previous post:
>
> << Some replicators replicate well. Other replicators replicate
> poorly. But
> if a replicator replicates so poorly that it doesn't replicate AT
> ALL, then
> there is no point in continuing to view it as a replicator.
I disagree. Precisely because definition of potential memes is bound do
degenerate into inelegant nonsense. I propose, instead, that all is memetic.
But some replicate better than others. Much fails to replicate at all.
Indeed, dormancy may be the norm. Then, when something that hither too has
never replicated, does, it will not become problematical.
> >>
>
> Bill:
>
> I am inclined to agree.
>
> James:
>
> Besides, without the appropriate decoding system, it becomes
> meaningless to
> talk of an artefact containing information.
>
> Bill:
>
> Well, it certainly is meaningless to talk about their containing
> meaning. But we knew that Egyptian hieroglyphs and Mayan stellae
> contained information before we could decode them.
>
> James:
>
> Speaking of decoding... Let us consider a simple case of memetic
> transmission, i1->m->i2. In order for the i-form to count as being
> successfully transmitted, the copy (i2) must be sufficiently
> similar to the
> original (i1).
>
> But there is another way of looking at it. The i-meme is successfully
> replicated if the process of decoding it is the INVERSE of the process of
> encoding it (i.e. the decoding acts to undo the encoding).
> In (rather informal) symbolism:
>
> i1 = i2 iff inv(m->i2) = (i1->m)
>
> Bill:
>
> Def inv(mx->iy) = iy->mx , right?
>
> Well, I think if (i1, c) -> m and (i2, c) -> m, where c is the
> context for m, for all c, then i1 = i2. I don't think that the
> converse holds, however, assuming that c does not include the
> person who incorporates the meme. (It depends on how you classify
> m-forms. A tricky question. There is also a question of novel
> contexts. If it appears that (i1, c4138) -> m135 and (i2, c4138)
> -> m154, but i1 and i2 produce equivalent m-forms in all other
> known contexts, maybe other memes are involved in c4138, and i1
> and i2 are still actually identical. Tricky. <s>)
>
> James:
>
> Bill, do you think this sort of thing could evolve into a
> rigorous logic of
> memetic transmission? I started toying with these ideas after seeing you
> constantly writing out L-G-L-G-L and so forth.
>
> Bill:
>
> Yes. <s> I think your idea is more promising than the hope that
> i-memes can be equated by examination of their physical substrates.
>
> Strictly speaking, however, I think that we are very often
> talking about i-m-i'-m'-i''-m''-.... The mutation rate for memes
> is high, since human perception is constructed, as well as human
> memory. (There are other reasons, as well.)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bill
>
> ===============================================================
> 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