Re: Context as transformation rules

James McComb (
Sun, 5 Sep 1999 15:19:32 +1000

From: "James McComb" <>
To: "Memetics Discussion List" <>
Subject: Re: Context as transformation rules
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 15:19:32 +1000

Robin Faichney:

But according to information's numerical identity, if m2 = m1, then m2 *is*
m1. So such processes, which I think might usefully be termed
"duplication", fall out of the analysis.

James McComb:

That's right. 'Duplication' may be a common process in the real world, but
it falls out of the analysis. It's ironic that the process with highest
copying fidelity (duplication) is unproblematic from a information-theoretic
view, because exact replicas are the result of the null transformation!

Robin Faichney:

I'm not sure about the interpreted/uninterpreted distinction.

James McComb:

It's not very clear, is it? Here is the same point about identity, without
the intentional terminology:

Two memes are identical if they share they same type of physical
instantiation. The fact that two memes are identical DOES NOT MEAN that the
same information will be extracted from them. This is because the same meme
can be interpreted in different ways (can be transformed by different
transformation rules). Symbolically:

m1 --t1-> m2 and
m1 --t2-> m3 where t1 !=(not equals) t2

Confusion on this point is caused by not distinguishing between the source
meme (m1) from the destination memes (m2 and m3).

I hope THIS clarifies the concept of identity!

---James McComb

Fidelity! Fecundity! You know the rest...

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)