RE: Precision of replication

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Fri 20 Jun 2003 - 01:42:27 GMT

  • Next message: Keith Henson: "RE: Precision of replication"

    >From: Keith Henson <>
    >Subject: RE: Precision of replication
    >Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:08:45 -0400
    >At 09:30 AM 19/06/03 -0700, Richard wrote:
    >>Lawry wrote:
    >><<Richard, is it your thought that memeplexes and memes behave differently
    >>when it comes to transmission and replication? I have looked at the case
    >>which only a subset of the memes in a memeplex are transmitted, and what
    >>effect that has, but short of this I have been proceeding on the
    >>that a memeplex is essentially just a 'big meme' when it comes to
    >>I think you've put your finger on it. It makes no sense to talk about a
    >>being transmitted with less than 100% fidelity unless you are talking
    >>mutation. With a memeplex, you might be interested in less than
    >>100%-fidelity transmission as long as the receiving mind exhibits similar
    >>behavior as a result of sharing the memeplex.
    >A bit of borrowed model and some examples might help here.
    >Meme transmission between people is through a classic Shannon information
    >transmission channel. That channel is severely limited as to bandwidth (a
    >few bits per second) and noisy. As was mentioned on this thread, errors
    >creep in at the transmit end, the channel, and the receive end.
    >The way errors are corrected in electronic communications is through check
    >sums and retransmission. I.e., you test that the information got through
    >without error and send it again if it had errors.
    >Something very much like this is done in teaching children where there is a
    >cycle of feeding information to the children, testing and repeating until
    >you verify that the information has made the jump to the child's mind. I
    >suppose the way a word is spelled could be considered a minimal kind of
    >meme--in which case children learn many thousands of them to a high degree
    >of accuracy and are tested and corrected on spelling constantly (perhaps
    >less today with the advent of spell checkers). [Spelling tends to be
    >highly constrained by dictionaries, but even there you can see minor
    >spelling drifts and divergences, night -> nite, plough -> plow, and color
    >-> colour.]
    >Now the fewer bits being transmitted the better the information fidelity.
    >Thus short words are misspelled less frequently than longer ones and you
    >have hundreds of millions of people who know "three strikes and four balls"
    >meme that is part of the "memeplex" of baseball but far fewer of them know
    >the fine points of a catcher dropping the ball on the third strike. [I
    >don't feel the need for the term but I recognize that some feel they need
    >for a name for complexes of memes. If I felt the need, I would favor
    >Hofstedter's term, "a scheme of memes." :-) ]
    >Thus meme transmission is *never* free of errors. But with lots of error
    >checking and retransmission, the errors can be reduced to arbitrarily small
    >I might add that DNA replication is *also* subjected to error checking and
    >correction by a collection of molecular machines.
    >Most of the time memes get replicated "good enough." Long as you
    >understand what is going on it is not something to fuss over.
    Many of my posts are good examples of how speeling errors get transmitted but the receiver hopefully relizes which words were intended. Perhap this is a post-transmission error correction mechanism. I blame my keyboard for the pre-transmission stuff.

    _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get VirusScan Online

    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri 20 Jun 2003 - 01:51:00 GMT