RE: Inernal meme?

Mark M. Mills (
Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:54:20 -0400

Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:54:20 -0400
From: "Mark M. Mills" <>
Subject: RE: Inernal meme?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9910121122480.10639-100000@polywog.navpoint.


OK. Let me see if I understand you.

At 11:32 AM 10/12/99 -0400, you wrote:

>Each atom is doing its
>thing, and following it's own laws. You won't see `eat at joes' spelled
>out in the atom of neon.

OK. I agree.

I hope you will agree that this is a semiotic comment. It is only via
semiotics that one can define 'eat at joes' as a sign. I would agree that
finding this semiotic unit on an atom very, very unlikely.

>And you won't see a [rope] wave in the atom of a rope.

In terms of physics, movements of the rope atoms actually define the rope
wave. Tracking an individual atom will show a path of motion suggesting some
sort of wave motion is taking place. With enough history and knowledge of the
rope atom's mass, one can calculate an image of the rope. This is typical of
geophysics where moving sensor atoms allow the geophysicist to draw a picture
of the earth's crust. Their ability to do this is founded upon wave

If your meaning is semiotic, then there is certainly nothing 'symbolizing' the
rope or rope wave in the rope atoms.

>however, putting it all together, you /will/ see the big picture.

Maybe I would understand your perspective better if you elaborated on what you
mean by 'big picture.'

>This is what i mean by `belief of' as far as the neurons are concerned.

OK. Now we are jumping to neurons. Maybe there is a connection between
neurons and the above discussion of signs, but I don't see it.

>I can take the analogy a step furthur to say that you wont see little
>humans in the cells of humans... or a little heart in the cell of a

I agree on the physical level, but your conversation seems focused on signs.
If we are talking about sign use, there may be similarities between nerve to
nerve communication and human to human communication.

Wouldn't a 10 msec amplitude inflection at a synapse, repeated 10 times, each
from a common base voltage be a sign?

You and I are communicating via email, something enabled by variable current
oscillations translated into visual images. Wouldn't similar voltage
oscillations at the synapse level be signs, too? Could it be that nerve cells
are communicating with some signs we would recognize as signs, too?

Bill Benzon recently suggested it would be impossible to make any sense of the
raw bit stream between two nerve cells, but I posted a reference yesterday to
success interpretation of such a bit stream.
/ The scientists
involved report converting the bit stream between cat thalamus nerve cells
recognizable moving objects via computer processing.

My interest is in the semiotics of nerve to nerve communication. Does such a
semiotics exist? Does it relate to human semiotics?

Does my interest in this suggest I think each nerve cell is a little man? I
hope not.

>And, the whole point of bringing this up: you wont see an idea,
>or belief system in the cell of a brain.

I agree and go a step further. I don't think you would see an idea on any

What have I said that suggest one would ever seen an idea? I'm puzzled. Are
you addressing this comment to me? Please elaborate.

>Only when you stand back and
>see how the pieces all work together can you get any idea of what diner
>you've hit while travelling down Route 1.

'Standing back' is a relative term. Is 'standing back' removing oneself 1
millimeter, 1 meter, 1 mile or 1 parsec? What do you mean by 'standing
What criteria are you using do determine 'far enough'? Is this determined by
semiotic schemes or physics?

Overall, Elmo, I'm puzzled by your comments. I must be missing the point you
are making. Maybe I'm not standing back far enough.


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)