From: Bill Spight (email@example.com)
Date: Fri 06 May 2005 - 17:24:23 GMT
>>> So maybe there are phenomena that we think of as being a part of
>>> culture (like dancing and playing music), which are actually
>>> not memes but individual responses to memes.
>> Is it either/or?
> It is either/or in the sense that something either is a meme or it is
> not. But of course there is a memetic element to dance, music and
> comparable bits of culture. I'm just wondering whether there's any
> explanatory mileage in noticing that there is also a non-memetic,
> non-social element to them: an element that is due to individual
> learning and response.
Well, any memetic transfer to a human requires both competence and
learning on the human's part. (Referring to your earlier example,
recognizing that your performance is not correct requires a kind of
Now, anything that requires rehearsal, practice, or training to learn is
arguably not a meme, because it is not transferred as a unit. At the
same time, there may be a meme that is transferred that allows us to
recognize it when we see it. I think that it is important to note the
distinction, however we regard the other learning.
>>> Where I was going with my suggestion (which is only that - a
>>> thought I had while composing the message) was that, while the
>>> how-to knowledge is a transmissible bit of information, the
>>> physical ability is not transmissible.
>> We largely agree there, too. But the physical ability is trainable
>> and the training is social.
> The training is social in so far as it involves conversations and
> other interactions with the trainer: that's the process by which s/he
> conveys the how-to knowledge. But in the end the physical ability
> has to be learned individually.
Arnold Schwarzenegger ("The Governator") once ruled the world of body
building. But he did not just build his body. He sculpted it in accord
with certain (memetic) ideals, and he did so better than anybody else.
Back in Charles Atlas's day, the ideal memes were different, as we can
see from pictures of Charles Atlas, and from Greek sculpture, which was
taken as a model. (The question of models, i.e., prototypes, vs.
schemata is one I have touched on before.) Arnold's body itself (back
then) has served as a prototype for many body builders. We might even
say that it embodied certain memes. (I guess you would not, however. :-) )
Let's ignore Arnold's musculature and just look at his brain. As Arnold
trained, his brain changed as well. And these changes were not simply
reflections of the changes in his musculature and body image, as they
would be for most non-body builders. They were directly and essentially
connected to the ideals Arnold had already learned. There was probably
some feedback involved, as these ideals were continually reinterpreted
in terms of Arnold's current body image during training.
What do we say of the structure of bodybuilding memes in Arnold's brain
at the time? Do we confine it to the recognition of bodybuilding ideals,
as we might for a fan of bodybuilding? To do so would ignore the strong
neural connections to his body image, which to a great extent
exemplifies the ideals. Not only that, but, since the ideals are to some
degree vague, his body image provided definition to those ideals.
Memes in the brain (and in the external culture) are part of a network.
There is thus a question of boundaries. Where do we draw the line? In
Arnold's case, as with any practice or training, strong connections were
built that extended beyond mere recognition. Not including these
connections seems arbitrary.
If it were merely a question of recognition plus individual practice and
training, there would be a good case for restricting memes to
recognition. However, Arnold's additional connections built by training
enabled him to train others. (Along with other training know-how.) These
additional connections are culturally transferred, but not primarily
through recognition. (Imitation may play a role in training.)
Now, everyone's body is different, so everyone's body image is
different, so these connections will be different for everybody. Are
they similar enough to talk about replication?
But everybody's brain is different, too. So when we talk about memes in
brains, we are talking about similarity. We are not talking about
If we talk about external aspects of memes, we may have identical
copies. But often we are talking similarity there, as well. And that is
particularly so with ideals and prototypes, which are seldom, if ever,
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 : Fri 06 May 2005 - 17:46:25 GMT