From: Keith Henson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu 24 Jul 2003 - 02:56:48 GMT
Richard Brodie wrote:
>Keith, thank you for the interesting discussion.
Any time. :-)
><<Memes differ from other kinds of replicating information in their active
>>locus, which is (mostly) human minds/brains. Exceptions being those memes
>>active in other animals. When we get human like AI, the difference between
>>memes and computer viruses might get a bit hard to sort out.>>>
>No argument here.
>><< It is the
>>active location rather than influencing its own replication that defined an
>>information pattern as a meme. (Otherwise, computer viruses become memes,
>>since they are much more obvious in influencing their own replication.)>>>
>Not "rather than" but "as well as." Information in a mind that does not
>influence its own replication (if there really is any such thing) is not a
>meme. But theoretically my behavior is influenced by the totality of my
>mental state, so maybe it's just a matter of some memes being more potent
>than others. But the whole point of a replicator is that it influences its
>own replication and therefore may be subject to Darwinian selection.
If you look at the last interaction I had with Aaron Lynch I think we have
converged. A meme "influence its own replication" in the minimal sense
that a previous copy existed.
But a full causal loop may not exist. A short causal loop exists for genes
that make DNA replication devices in cells and a longer one exists for
genes that contribute to metabolism or body structure. But viruses (being
parasites) don't contribute in any way to the DNA/RNA copy machines that
replicate them. (Neither does the junk DNA that clutters up animal genomes.)
Memes of the rock chipping class eventually feed back to more copies of
themselves through a long process of improving the survival of the genes
and people of those who host such memes. Memes that induce celibacy or
suicide simply don't have this kind of causal loop. They are (like
viruses) obvious parasites on other replicators. I think a heck of a lot
of human culture, particularly fads and fashions, are parasitic, i.e.,
memes that don't contribute to host survival/reproduction. (But may not
hurt it much either.)
This does not prevent parasites from evolving of course. In fact, some of
the most fearsome evolution goes on between parasites and their prey/hosts.
>><<I kind of miss why you think we are in disagreement. I don't see any
>>reason to call artifacts memes either. Now as I have pointed out, the meme
>>(information) can sometimes be extracted from the artifact, but an artifact
>>is not per se a meme. (Memes-on-paper are supposed to be easy to
>I wouldn't say a meme can be extracted from an artifact. I would say the
>presence of an artifact can be a part of the causal chain for meme
>replication. Memes can also be part of the causal chain for artifact
>replication (such as a chain letter).
Near as I can tell we are in agreement on what happens, with only a
variation in terminology. If an artifact is part of the causal chain for a
meme replication, how does the artifact differ from the same material
previous to it becoming an artifact? I.e., how does a stone differ from a
chipped rock or how does a blank sheet of paper differ from one folded into
a paper airplane? Now I refer to the *information* that makes the
difference in an artifact as the meme, just as I refer to the same
information in a brain as a meme.
We could restrict meme to "meme-in-a-mind/brain where it might have effect"
but then we should have a nice short name for the information that makes
the difference between a flat sheet and a folded one, between a blank sheet
and one with directions about how to make a paper airplane, between a blank
video tape and one showing someone folding up an airplane, etc. This
information-in-an-artifact can, of course, create a "meme-in-a-mind/brain"
exactly the same as one "meme-in-a-mind/brain" can be replicated verbally
or by demonstration into another mind.
Perhaps we do need to make the distinction and come up with a name for
"lump-of-information-encoded-in-some-artifact-that-will-become-a-meme-when-in-a-mind." Meme backwards is emem. Pronounced e-mem it could also evoke Encoded MEMory.
In the example of a chain letter you mention above, the replicating
information pattern would run meme -> e-mem -> meme -> e-mem forever until
the last e-mem went into the trash. I have been using "replicating
information pattern" (which are active in minds rather than computers or
cell nuclei) as a synonym for memes. We could I suppose rearrange the
terminology and use RIPs to be the inclusive class where meme and e-mem are
members of the class.
To be consistent, we would need to have parallel terms for inactive
computer viruses, and dry DNA or DNA listings.
I don't personally think there is a point in distinguishing between
in-minds and on-paper RIPs, but am open to other opinions. It sure has
generated a lot of discussion here.
><<I can see why the confusion occurs. Take the King James Bible. (If you
>know much about gay history, a better name would be the Queen James
>>Bible.) We are forever using the informational content to refer to a
>>particular lump of paper. But we think about it, we really know that's a
>>shortened way of saying this lump of paper encodes a *copy of the
>>information we call the KJ Bible.* We sort out the different meanings from
>>context. "Do you have a (copy of the) KJ Bible?" (artifact) "Have you
>>read the KJ Bible?" (informational)>>>
>I don't get your point here.
The difference is rather more than the difference between cheese and
chalk. The artifact you can use to prop up a short chair leg. The
informational memes when loaded into brains may induce humans to go on a
>> >>although I have said repeatedly that
>> >>some can be fruitfully viewed as replicators (the Eiffel Tower is the
>> >>standard example).
>><<That's on a par with saying people replicate. It does not really reflect
>>People possess or are possessed by the artistic meme of the Eiffel
>>tower. For reasons not entirely clear, but rooted in our attraction to
>>visual items like Bonsai trees and lawns, they desire to have one of
>>them. This leads to a construction project. The welded (instead of
>>riveted) result is not a "replication" of the original much more than
>>children are replicas of parents. It is the underlying memes or genes that
>>are the replicators and the towers or humans are expressed artifacts and
>I disagree. For example, we have made replicas of the statues at Easter
>Island and the block arrangements at Stonehenge although the civilizations
>that built them and their original purpose is lost in antiquity.
The Easter Island statues are fairly well understood as displacement
pathology by humans trapped in an eco-disaster. There is a lot of material
about them and the culture that made them on the net. Eventually humans
made the usual response to tight resources and started killing each
other. The population may have fallen to as low as 5 percent of its maximum.
Jared Diamond - Easter's End
... of the islanders are rife with cannibalism; the most inflammatory taunt that could be snarled at an enemy was "The flesh of your mother sticks between my ... www.geocities.com/skews_me/easterisland.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
>if you plopped the Eiffel Tower into the middle of a modern culture that had
>never seen it you would be more likely to get high-fidelity replicas than if
>you dropped 10,000 random Frenchmen into a country without one (or plans for
Possibly. But wouldn't such an appearance be marked by people measuring it
and trying to figure out what it is? And making plans or NC computer files
before they started building another one? Point being that it takes on an
abstracted form between being made into material.
> And look at the Venus de Milo: the acquired characteristic of the
>removal of arms has been replicated countless times, not the sculptor's
Sure. But even when someone made a mold off the original, they had to make
a negative mold in between making replicas. Information extraction first,
not just direct replication.
(Snip to get under size limit)
>>Memes, at least the abstract information model I prefer, don't
>>"self-replicate" either. Takes a copy machine at least, even if you don't
>>count the humans in the loop (which you should since they made the copy
>>Point being that the *only* common thing I can see in any "replication" is
>>making copies of the *information*. The media in brains, on paper, or mag
>>tape, in which a meme is encoded is never exactly the same. Even DNA
>>replication seldom makes an "exact" material copy since the copies could be
>>distinguished by different isotopes of the elements in the base pairs. But
>>unless there has been a mutation, the genetic *information* is exact
>>between copies. Same way the information of 3 balls and 4 strikes is exact
>>in millions of books and brains.>>>
>Self-replication does not mean replication without any external help. It
>simply means that the existence of the replicator in its necessary venue
>tends to cause more copies of that replicator to exist in the future than
>there would be if it didn't exist in the present.
>Are we getting closer?
"Tends to cause" is darn close to Aaron's "Self." When you get down to
"existence of the replicator" being all you need, it is such a weak requirement that I have no problem with it.
What surprised me is that nobody corrected my accidentally mutated
meme. Probably because it is so well ingrained that you read it right when
I had written it wrong.
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 24 Jul 2003 - 05:36:56 GMT