From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Context as transformation rules
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 12:59:19 -0400
In-Reply-To: <19990904092547.31883.qmail@hotmail.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of James McComb
> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 1999 5:26 AM
> To: Memetics Discussion List
> Subject: Re: Context as transformation rules
>
>
> ____________Transformation rules and identity
>
> How should we construe identity on the information-theoretic view
> of memes?
> I understand identity in terms of the null transformation. This is a
> generalization of the 'reciprocity of transformation' view.
>
> Here is what i mean by 'null transformation':
>
> If m1 --t1-> m1
> then t1 = 0
>
> (i.e. if a meme remains unchanged under a transformation, then that
> transformation is the null transformation.)
No, that *net* transformation is the null. Because the transformation ends
at return to identity, or whatever passes for identity. But change does take
place through out. And this is not null. Only the net transformation comes
to null.
>
> Two memes are identical iff the total amount of transformation is equal to
> the null transformation. (This is kind of like vector arithmetic).
> Symbolically (for a 3-transformation system):
>
> If m1 --t1-> m2 --t2--> m3 --> m1
> then t1 + t2 + t3 = 0
>
> Two memes are identical if they share they same structure.
Structure??? What sort of structure? Neurological? Logical? Grammatical?
>The
> fact that two
> memes are identical DOES NOT MEAN that the same information will be
> extracted from them. This is because the same meme can be interpreted in
> different ways (can be transformed by different transformation
> rules).
Then transformation is continuous, and the terminus at which to test for
identity may be arbitrary. But it may be significant if identity ever
returns at any point. That there might ever be any point of reversion to
form.
>This
> fact is represented symbolically below:
>
> m1 --t1-> i1 and
> m1 --t2-> i2 where t1 !=(not equals) t2
>
> Confusion on this point is caused by not distinguishing between
> uninterpreted meme (m1) from the interpreted memes i1 and 12.
>
> Hope this clarifies the concept of identity!
>
> ---James McComb
>
> ===============================================================
> 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