Re: information transmission

Chris Lofting (
Fri, 19 Mar 1999 01:36:46 +1100

From: "Chris Lofting" <>
To: <>
Subject: Re: information transmission
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 01:36:46 +1100


-----Original Message-----
From: SOC MicroLab 2, UEA, Norwich <>
To: <>
Date: Friday, 19 March 1999 12:09
Subject: Re: information transmission

>> This brings up the important problem of 'inherited
>knowledge.' For this
>> process to work, the baby must be born with some ability
>to interpret
>> tokens in a useful way for both mother and baby. If the
>baby cannot
>> 'properly' interpret the tokens, everyone becomes unhappy.
> Problems may
>> exist in the 'sensing' capabilities (blindness or
>deafness), but they may
>> also exist on the psychological level (autism). If autism
>exists, there
>> might be a lack of 'inherited' knowledge or a lack of
>focus (baby doesn't
>> know to focus on momma).
>It sounds like you are invoking something akin to Chomsky's
>language acquisition device (LAD) here, which can fit well
>with evolutionary theory, i think (it's quite
>straightforward to imagine how it evolves, too). However, it
>all goes a bit pear-shaped when you say:
>> Thus, the token model of information flow requires a
>substantial amount
>> of inherited knowledge to provide a foundation for our
>consciousness to
>> emerge.
>> With this in mind, I'll claim we inherit memes. They are
>not transmitted
>> from person to person. We are born with them. As we
>mature, our memes
>> are molded by our experiences.
>> Mark
>This is all very well, but it isn't memetics. The kind of
>evolution you're invoking here is longitudinal (that is
>'down' from one generation from the next) like genetics.
>Yes, some information does get passed on longitudinally, and
>it's possible that this knowledge is inherited "physically"
>- perhaps like the LAD. But what makes memetics interesting
>- infact it's the main premise of memetics - is that
>information *can* get passed horizontally. We know that
>ideas get passed from person to person (in a way unlike
>longitudinal passing of information) and we are trying to
>look for a plausible algorithm for that phenomenon.

Try this:

(1) all information is reducable to distinctions at the neurological level
of objects and relationships.
(2) these distinctions are pre-coded and associated with patterns of
(3) this general 'pool' of emotion is in all members of the species and it
has a structure that is the template for all metaphors.
(4) communication is through the process of resonance, particularised
through the use of metaphor/symbolisms that help to differentiate one
'object' from another.
(5) affective processes are best described using the wave metaphor since it
allows for superpositions and so 'fundamental' memes can 'entangle' to form
'compound' memes which can either dissolve over time or even develop into an
'object' sense. In other words from relationships emerges objects and
objects can break down into their constituent relationships.
(6) refining (1), so the neurons are the warp and
neurotransmitters/neuromodulators the weft. The resulting patterns are
'memes' that can become entangled with each other and elicit a sense of
'meaning'. (note that the method of decription here is already
object/relationship biased).
(7) the development process follows complexity guidelines and so allows for
emergence as a consequence of excessive feedback.
(8) Further refining (1), objects can be seen as either wholes or parts
where parts are wholes in their own right but we need to change focus/scale
to see them as such.
(9) Relationships are seen as either static or dynamic. This gives us four
fundamental categorisations:

Static relationships
Dynamic relationships

(10) From these four we can see the source of, for example, mathematics:

Wholes -- whole numbers both prime (objects) and compound ( result of
Parts -- rational numbers (members of the harmonic series)
Static Relationships - irrational numbers (made up of summing series of
parts to emphasis an invarient relationship)
Dynamic relationships -- imaginary numbers (represent morphic and cyclic
change; transformation/transition)

(11) Now add another dichotomy, that of
text(foreground)/context(background). This implicitly adds negation in the
form of context, i.e. NOT foreground. Context is the source of the concept
of negation.

(12) We now have eight fundamental elements that we can weave together to
give us 'refined' general meanings that can then be used as templates for
metaphors/symbolisms. Feedback lets this grow exponentially, 8 - 64 - 4096
etc and develops at a 'good' engineering relationship of context to text
(n^2 : n) meaning to fully appreaciate the 8 we need to go to 64 etc

(13) The fundamental process that drives this is the use of dichotomies.
These are typed, we have 1:1, 1:many, many:1, many:many but the neurology
seems to favour 1:many and each dichotomy serves as the context for the
derivation of the next and so on.

(14) All communctions is founded on these fundamentals. Complexity allows
for 'emergence' and so the development of 'robust' contexts that can sustain
the emergence of 'novel' forms, forms which are entanglements of the
fundamentals but can take-on an 'objectivity' of their own.

(15) When we analyse the neurology there seems to be two threads at work,
manifest in the neocortex in the form of the two hemispheres but when we
zoom-in on these so we see the threads present in both. Lets call these
threads, left and right. We are dealing with biases and a complexity
development of branching, bifurcations, dichotomisations. Unwrap the
brain/spinal chord and it takes on the form of a trunk with branches.

(16) Thus the brain, in general, shows a patterns something like:

LLLLLL -- RRRRRR posterior

But this pattern is also found when we drill down, we move from the
particular to the general etc.

(17) When we analyse the fundamental behavioural characteristics of
left/right so the left seems more objects oriented and the right more
relationships. Characteristics that we can link to axon/dendrite behaviours
and even that of fermions (objects) and bosons (relationships). We can trace
a development path back to the beginnings of the universe, unless that is
what we see since the left/right threads filter our information processing
but what else is there at the fundamental level other than

(18) When we zoom in to the brain so we see in the left hemisphere a bias to
processing object data in the form of bounded data, this from that;
independent forms. When we zoom into the right so we see the fuzzing of
boundaries, interference where we see aspects of the whole, a complex line
drawing rather than a necker-cube oscillation. (see quotes in ) This same pattern, here
applied to the visual information is also present in the processing of
auditory information suggesting that, in general, these are properties of an
abstract information processing system rather than being properties of a

(19) It all comes down to (a) Object/Relationship distinctions (b)
dichotomisations (c) metaphorcation, the mind makes a reality image to work
with just as the brain has a body image to work with. Metaphorcation takes
'out there', paints it with emotion and in so doing creates a pattern 'in
here'. But, this is structured by in here as well into object/relationship
distinctions but these are not necessarily 'facts' in that you intent, hoe
you intend to perceive, will 'colour' what you perceive and this can be the
source of confusions.

(20) When we study other organisms that use neurological mechanisms to
process data we find their categorisations seem to reflect the same
object/relationship distinctions. (see, for example, Stephen Rose's work
with chicks).

(21) With humans, so words, symbols act as 'stones' that when thrown into
the 'pool' of emotion creates waves of meaning. I can drop the stone or
'skip' it and so affect the structure, the energy of the waves. Besides
this, particular waveforms represent particular 'meanings' founded on the
eight basic types. These types can be re-defined in terms derived from
considering ways of mixing. There are four ways that elicit fundamental
'feelings' linked to the more abstract categorisations. They are:

Whole -- a sense of blending
Parts -- a sense of bounding
Static relationships -- a sense of bonding
Dynamic relationships -- a sense of binding

(22) These senses serve as 'qualia' that is tied to the abstract terms;
these senses are wave-like, relational terms linked to the more
particle-like object terms.



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)