Re: information transmission

Chris Lofting (
Sun, 28 Mar 1999 23:55:16 +1000

From: "Chris Lofting" <>
To: <>
Subject: Re: information transmission
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 23:55:16 +1000

Hi Mark..

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark M. Mills <>
To: <>
Date: Saturday, 27 March 1999 12:15
Subject: Re: information transmission

>>>Let me rephrase the question. What selective advantage allowed the
>>>'personal holographic film' to evolve? Associated with this question is,
>>>'what source did the personal holographic film evolve from'?
>>seeing variations on a theme rather than the 'one' theme. Archetypal
>>processing is very single context. IT is based on oppositions, light vs
>>dark. these are enternal and so the 'same' theme, the same cast in every
>>battle and the war is eternal.
>>Now see the male and female as cooperative and so variations on a theme.
>>more 'human'. advantageous wouldnt you say?
>Well, I was looking for something less literary and more biological.
>I don't have any problem with the use of theme, distinction and dichotomies
>in regards to memetic operations, but I was hoping you would talk about the
>physical reality that brings their possibility to life. The biological
>model will make the link between them and memetics easier to understand.

You mean the fundamental dichotomy of purine/pyramidine? Shift levels and we
see the fundamental dichotomy of DNA/RNA? DNA as the general, a storage
center from which we cut-out the particular RNA sequence?

Shift levels again and we see the object/relationship dichotomy of the
neocortex hemispheres.

Drop a bit and we see the axon/dendrite dichotomy of the nervous system.

These are all 1:many biased. Precision is possible where the 'many' is set
at '1'.

To link these we have:

object:axon:RNA - stimulus/response bias - particular -- the one

relationship:dendrites:DNA -- stimulus/considered response bias (feedback
processes) - general -- the many

We can go deeper to the fundamental particle level where we have
fermions(object bias) and bosons (relationships bias) We see the same
patterns at all scales.

If genetics is linked to the physical then memetics is linked to the mental,
this 'repeats' the pattern. (genotype -- the one; phenotype -- the many)

>I think everyone agrees that memetics is about the evolution of culture.
>Some say that culture started with the arrival of language using humans.

I disagree. It started with the 'mutation' that brought the opposites of
light/dark into union and thus replaced them by the sexual concept of
male/female. THEN came culture and rich metaphor/symbolisms that were
refined by the use of spoken language.

>I take the view that memes are the inner neural workings that produce
>cultural behavior. Since our inner mental workings are extremely complex,
>it is difficult to isolate individual memes via the study of behavior.

Depression is linked to uptake problems with serotonin (too fast)
God-in-the-head syndrome is linked to uptake problems with serotonin (too

To beat depression, run or eat chocolate (or take the tablets)

These general influences elicit particular thought processes and to recall
the particular thoughts you have to be in the same state as you had them.

This is the warp-weft process where neurons are the warp (objects) and the
neuromodulators/transmitters are the weft (relationships) and behaviour is
the resulting pattern.

>work of Chomsky is a basic experimental strategy for memes: take all
>cultures and look for patterns.

object:relationships patterns. Nouns:Verbs. Apply recursion and a continuum
emerges, verb-like nouns and noun-like verbs.

Understanding memetics is thus a process
>of understanding the discrete set of options our nearly infinite range of
>expression is built upon (as biology is upon 4 DNA bases).

two dichotomies purine/pyramidine and then within each the A/C and U/G

Note that the fundamental relational properties of dichotomisation is (a)
opposition and (b) cooperation.

>There is the issue of the 'starter'
>set of behaviors (similar to starter sets for computer neural networks) we
>use to produce desired experiences (children seek stimulation, stimulation
>instinctively produces experience, experiences produce trained response)
>that lead to cultural behaviors. Somehow, genetics provides us with this.

Our emotions orginate from the dichotomy of positive/negative (oppositional
format to start. Surface of the amygdala shows interdigitations of
fight/flight dichotomy). You can map these to object/relationship mappings
when you apply the dichotomy recursively recognising that this process
'entangles' the elements of the dichotomy and so 'novel' forms of expression

whole -- sense of blending, becoming or unbecoming one
parts -- sense of bounding, distinction of A from B (A/~A)

static relationships -- sense of bonding
dynamic relationships -- sense of binding

add fight/flight (expand/contract) and you have eight fundamentals that can
be combined to create more complex feelings and so 'categorisations' of 'out
there' as well as 'in here'.

>What I find interesting about dichotomy models for cultural minds, like the
>model you propose, is the way it suggests Chomsky like experiments. I
>suspect you understand this as well as I do. On the other hand, it is
>quite a leap for most. If we could build a believable biological model the
>leap would be easier to make.

true. Matter of linking the dots to get a continuum of 'meaning' and so
something presentable that causes 'resonance' :-)



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)