Re: information transmission

Chris Lofting (
Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:03:45 +1100

From: "Chris Lofting" <>
To: <>
Subject: Re: information transmission
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:03:45 +1100

Hi Mark..

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Mills <>
To: Memetics List <>
Date: Tuesday, 23 March 1999 4:46
Subject: Re: information transmission

>>In making our maps of 'out there', the distinctions of
>>is, I think, hard-coded as a method.
>What do you mean by 'hard-coded as a method'?

It is a 'natural' response to categorise into object/relationship
distinctions. It is reactive and it is not just in humans, other organisms
use it as well. (e.g. Stephen Rose's work with chicks Rose, S., (1991) "What
the Chick Can Tell Us About the Process and Structure of Memory" IN
Squire, L., et al (eds) (1991) "Memory: Organisation and Locus of Change"
OUP.) Appears as the combination of neurons (warp) and biochemisty (weft)..
but see below....

>Do you mean genes determine our use of object/relationship distinctions?

The pattern seems to be gene-based but it could just result from the
synchronisation processes of the neurons. If we look at the neuron
functioning as well as gap chemistry the abstract 'object' emphasis has a
'axonic' format in that there is a single context (energy pulse is constant)
and a recovery time that 'forces' distinction making, 'this from that'. At
the other end, 'dendritic' behaviour is more analogue, relational and linked
to feedback. Early, primitive systems are more stimulus/response whereas
more complex forms utilise feedback processes, stimulus/considered response.
Habituation is where the feedback process is no longer required, we just
'react' but now these reactions are 'refined' and so discernment can be
applied but 'instantly'. We train our military/atheletes this way and it is
very hard to 'untrain'. At best we can 'repress'.

Asymmetry in the hemispheres of the neocortex seem to back this up with a
left bias to objects and the right to relationships. Zoom-in and we seem to
see this repeated at different scales. It is more left-thread/right-thread
than left-brain/right-brain.

Looking at the senses so we see the same patterns. In the eye is the general
pattern matching para-fovea and the particular details emphasis of the
fovea. Sound seems to have the same pattern, or more so the information is
processed by the brain in the same way.

>Does instinct play a part in this?

I think so. The object/relationship distinction contains the concept of
tonic/harmonic and this is very useful in analysis. Feedback on this could
favour a bias to those who have this encoded 'by chance' and so it becomes
an instinct.

>>Thus we have a template, all information is reducable to it and it is this
>>that allows us to share meanings in the form of emotional resonance, for
>>each template state so a general emotional pattern exists and so functions
>>like a reference beam in a holographic film.
>I use the term Phillips and Huntly uses, 'story engine,' to describe
>something like this.
>>Due to the structure we can
>>also preempt information, 'know' what is to come.
>I can think of several interpretations. What do you mean?

The structure is 'emergent' and so we have the same patterns at different
scales. Those systems that apply recursion too quickly, ahead of the needs
could find that it was beneficial in survival. We are after all talking
BILLIONS of years of evolution. This is a form of 'pre-empting' things. In
our analysis of reality we do this in that when we get stuck we add a
dimension and 'all is revealed'. but the all is soon found to be of the same
general structure, just a little more refined with some 'novel' forms
emerging that could not survive in a 'lower', less developed, context.

>>In this context memes have a source and so are 'a thing' that has many
>>patterns. The template is the 'gene' and the patterns the 'expression' but
>>the feedback process also allows for 'preparation'.
>I am completely lost here.

:-) leave it for now...

>>If memes manifest 'habit' then they manifest the entanglement of 'text'
>>'context' and become part of the personal holographic film we all have and
>>where once engrained we return to a stimulus/response format; reference
>>beam -->image. no 'inbetween'. The establishment of habit requires
>>processes as part of the 'entanglement' process and included in this is
>>categorisation filtering. This is a 'fundamental' reference beam manifest
>>intent where we project the object/relationship distinction onto what we
>>analysing, thus first impressions are very hard to remove, perhaps at best
>>we can neutralise them.
>Personally, I'd rather say memes are the biological process regulators of
>our 'personal holographic film' (to use your term). 'Text' gets mixed up
>in 'context' very nicely without recourse to the term meme.
>How do you think the 'personal holographic film' evolved?


Fundamentalist processes are archetypal and so asexual or androgynous.
Self-similar. self-containment are 'fundamental' processes where we have
forms in hostile contexts. But there is no diversity here. Archetypes are
archetypes! zoom-in and all you see are 'the same'... electrons, photons,
skin cells etc etc Thus positive will always oppose negative, light opposes
dark. This pushes the symmetry concept.

Whatever the mutation was, it brought the negative around to being a partner
of the positive. This introduced copperative processes that included
diversity through sex. Diversity introduces varations on a theme, harmonics,
interference patterns. The one becomes the many.
This is not asymmetric but more a 'skew' of the symmetry.

>Is the 'personal holographic film' a genetic process?

If the gene is 'the one' it is a BOTH/AND form in that all possible forms
are expressed at the same time (holograph). Context 'selects', context is
the reference beam that leads to the expression. On the other hand the
method of analysis can lead to this conclusion :-)



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)