Re: Xtra!

Thu, 10 Sep 1998 12:41:57 -0400 (EDT)

Subject: Re: Xtra!
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 12:41:57 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 09 Sep 1998 13:31:17 -0500 Aaron Lynch <> wrote:

> I will point out that there are some drastic differences
> between what I have said in Lynch (1998) and what Gatherer claims that I
> have said in Lynch (1998). Anyone wanting to see what I really said will
> just have to read my 1998 paper.

I think that it is quite clear what you say. I never thought
there was any danger of me misinterpreting you. Perhaps we can
ask the other people on this list. Have I misinterpreted Aaron?
All comments welcome.

> For example, in order to reach the conclusion that I am proposing a
> particular model of neurobiology, Gatherer snips off the extremely
> important word "IF" from the sentence
> "If a mnemon resides very redundantly in someone's brain, that person still
> counts as only one host and one mnemon instantiation." (Lynch, 1998, end of
> section 4) Then Gatherer attacks this supposed neurobiology as if it were
> mine.

But it is yours. You claim that mnemons are instantiated in host
brains. This is what you have to justify. Why is the word 'if'
important? How _does_ a mnemon reside in a brain? How are we
'hosts'? Do you really think that the brain is a RAM, storing
mnemons in a stack?

> The actual point I was making was that if a piece of information exists,
> for instance, in both hemispheres of the brain, or even more than once in
> each hemisphere, then that piece of information will still only count as
> one mnemon instantiation per person.

I think the above paragraph shows that you do state this. How can
a piece of information 'exist[] both hemispheres'?, or
indeed in one hemisphere? What relationship does this model of
yours bear to any known data or school of thought in neurobiology?
or have you reinvented this field from scratch?

> I have seen misreadings of my work that seemed to result from busy people
> reading too quickly,

I wrestled long and hard over your paper believe me....

> but dropping the word "If" from the quoted
> material
> does not strike me as a case in point.

So what are you suggesting? That the word 'if' is crucial in this

> A wide variety of other
> problems in
> the Gatherer paper are equally perplexing.

Like what?

You have two tasks.

a) Refute me by smacking me smartly over the head with a big slab
of experimental data (as Mike correctly suggests)
b) Defend _your_ model.

These tasks are essentially separate. A is possible (Mike and
Mario are trying). B is .... well a little more difficult, I'd

Once again I invite other list members to comment on whether I
have misinterpreted Aaron or not.


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)