From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Encoding and Decoding
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 15:55:22 -0400
In-Reply-To: <98Xd4gAu$mz3Ew4N@faichney.demon.co.uk>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Robin Faichney
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 8:39 AM
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Encoding and Decoding
>
>
> In message <19990902072612.92206.qmail@hotmail.com>, James McComb
> <jamesmccomb@hotmail.com> writes
> >James McComb:
> >
> >Is it a logical necessity that encoding and decoding take place in any
> >memetic replication?
> >
> >Robin Faichney:
> >
> >Great question! In my view, yes. If, as you suggest, we accept the
> >i-form/m-form story, then we have to talk about the
> transformation between
> >these forms. Given that this is information, en/decoding *means*
> >transformation.
> >
> >James McComb:
> >
> >The problem is that the terms 'encoding' and 'decoding' imply that
> >transmission is a TWO-STEP process. This has been causing me
> some confusion.
> >But now I've come up with the reductio ad absurdum of that idea:
> >
> >TRANSMISSION AS EN/DECODING: Assume that for every encoding there is a
> >corresponding decoding. Then in every case of i-form to i-form
> replication,
> >there must be an EVEN number of transformations. i->m would be
> encoding, and
> >m->i would be decoding. But then what is m->m? Note that in an i->m->m->i
> >process, there have been exactly THREE transformations!
> >
> >The solution to these difficulties is to drop the misleading terms
> >'encoding' and 'decoding' and use the neutral word 'transformation'.
> >
> >TRANSMISSION AS TRANSFORMATION: Every transmission event is the
> >transformation of a meme from one physical representation to another. So
> >i->m is a transformation, m->i is a transformation, and m->m is a
> >transformation. The only symbolic difference between i and m in the
> >symbolism is that i->i transmissions are disallowed.
Actually, their may be special cases:
For example, an artifact, on it's own, leaves an indent or imprint, entirely
by accident, later perceived by an observer. There fore it may be more
accurate to characterize i->i transmissions as even more exceptional than
transmission at all.
> >
> >Robin, I am eager to know what you think of the 'transmission as
> >transformation' view. Does it elucidate your own thinking?
>
> I've already been thinking along these lines. I agree that en/decoding
> isn't ideal, but have yet to come up with anything better. I don't
> think transformation covers it, because we want to imply that there's a
> key, a code, which determines its nature. As for m->m, how about
> "duplication"?
No, because mutation may be involved, even where the end result shows
fidelity. There may be significant changes involved even in accurately
transmitting, behaving, demonstrating what was first encoded in experience
and observation. Thus, even fidelity may entail a special mutation process.
Fidelity is relative. One cannot wade through the same river twice. No two
pairs of hands can hold the same Bible, except perhaps within a stringent
cult. Just as there is context change in mind to mind transmission (via
behavioral or artifact mediation) likewise will there be subtle context
change even from memory to expression, a new experience in and of itself.
Thus there is no duplication but translation.
> --
> Robin Faichney
> Get Your FREE Information at
> http://www.conscious-machine.com
>
> ===============================================================
> 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