Re: Inernal meme?

Robert G. Grimes (
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 13:14:14 -0700

Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 13:14:14 -0700
From: "Robert G. Grimes" <>
Subject: Re: Inernal meme?

> Derek:
> I don't follow, a contagious environmental effect?

Perhaps I used the wrong description but there are so many, such as a yawn, the
study the other day where the interviewer assumed different poses and recorded
if the listener unconsciously assumed the same pose, etc., and when one combines
all of these and the unseen pheromonal effects (which are certainly
"contagious" as ones system responds) with memes producing activation perhaps
followed or accompanied by neurotransmitters, producing hormones, producing
more pheromones, etc., etc.)... I would think that anyone of these stimuli
could provoke the others and trying to establish some "prime mover" is
impossible if not close to it... Especially since it would be difficult to have
any neurological activity sans neurotransmitters.

During my older studies I simply attempted, personally, to become aware of a
"lower threshold" of these stimuli and then attempt to locate the primary
initiation to support or instantiate my theory of what primary stimulus had
affected me (at that time, pheromones). Naturally, this is very difficult (the
stimuli may be additive and only the collective effect recognized by the
subject) but my findings usually suggested that either a pheromone or a
subliminally heard sound or meme was the most likely. These, in turn, could
produce in me additional neurotransmitters, hormones, pheromones, and stimulate
memetic reproductions or resonances (depending on my personal associations),
etc. Any "isolation" of these stimuli would be very difficult. As a result,
most "evidence" would be anecdotal.

I had noted many times previously that the commonly experienced "thinking of
someone," and, looking up, seeing them across the street, or in the doorway of a
cafe, etc., where we frequently think "what a coincidence," when it is actually
recognition of a pheromone, perfume, voice tonality, collective surroundings,
etc., etc., recognized subliminally (or close to the limen) or a combination of
these things that caused the recollection.

To me, it appears apparent that memetic stimuli (internal or resonance to
external stimuli) will reproduce similar responses. To differentiate these from
simple associative routes, recent or past experiences that tend to resonate to
certain stimuli, etc., etc., much less the plethora of pheromones and other
stimuli in which we are bathed is terribly difficult if not impossible. We can
only minimize and isolate in successive tests to produce the probability of what
appears to be the initiating stimulus in different cases.

I well remember an experiment performed over a period of time at Los Alamos and
White Sands involving instances of accidents (related to nuclear weapons work)
were patterned against the "background of natural phenomena" and I was intrigued
at the figures because there appeared to be a very high correlation between
accident events to such things as atmospheric pressure, solar storms/activity,
magnetic disturbances, temperature, etc., etc., lending thought to what might be
considered previously as "invisible influences," etc. I had read of the
experiment originally in Time Magazine's science section and followed it up
later with calls to the libraries at Los Alamos and White Sands. I was
disappointed (but not surprised) to read that the particular study had been
removed from the shelves, pulled back from publication, etc., because they had
discovered improprieties in the experimental procedures. I had already noticed
that the "trail" of the original publication (originally put out by the AEC
prior to its split-up into AEC and NRC) had suddenly "disappeared" from previous
listings where I had found it.

They explained to me that the original experimenter had continued the
experiments and written addendums where astrological data was used that also
highly correlated with the events! Naturally, that made them suspicious and
they did another peer review and found the original study non reproducible and
defective; hence, the complete disappearance of the papers that I was looking
for! I was left with my original Time article and had since lost that. My call
was only one of many to which they had become accustomed, following up on what
originally seemed extraordinary (and requiring extraordinary proof)...

This latter only demonstrates that my own suppositions regarding memetic
initiation, etc., as well as others, are extremely prone to possibilities of
improper or inadequate correlations with other stimuli when considering the
human responses to stimuli, much less to such things as imitation, etc.

The recent reference to the Cetacean experiments at appeared to me to fall into a similar
category, highly improbable, and what notes I read seemed to support my personal
views.... As with PEAR at Princeton, follow the money (endowments, etc.)...

Hopefully, I have explained more adequately my perspective on "contagious
memetic influences."



> Bob:
> Certainly, I have been
> present when pheromones have activated a whole room full of people. The
> pheromones were stimulated in response both to semantic signals, words
> (environmental signals), and additional pheromones, and upon sensing the
> combined effects I would commence looking for the most likely origin.
> Usually,
> it would from an unescorted lady who was saying something that indicated she
> was
> both in need of companionship and demonstrating by actions a similar bodily
> display. This was, no doubt, accompanied by appropriate pheromonal stimuli
> (including perfume). Men, whether accompanied or not, would immediately
> commence
> activity, perhaps pacing in place (pawing the ground), and become
> "restless,"
> and I've frequently referred to such responses as the "rooster effect."
> Derek:
> Yes, okay, I follow so far. But is that memetic? I think I see what you're
> driving at, that (internal) meme transmission can in some circumstances be a
> pheromonal efect? If so, I have some ideas on that, but is that what you
> are saying?

Bob Grimes Jacksonville, Florida

Man is not in control, but the man who knows he is not in control is more in control...

Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore....."

=============================================================== 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) see: