From: Keith Henson (hkhenson@rogers.com)
Date: Wed Nov 12 2003 - 19:00:45 MST
At 03:06 PM 12/11/03 -0500, you wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Keith Henson" <hkhenson@rogers.com>
>
> > If we *require* an idea to replicate to be a meme or refer to memes as
> > replicating information, then an idea that has not been replicated is at
> > best a *potential* meme, but not a meme by definition. Minor point as
> long
> > as you understand what is going on. (It is more restrictive to become an
> > "element of culture." That requires enough replication for the pattern to
> > become common.)
>
>I agree that *if* we require an idea to replicate first to be called
>a meme, then what you say is true. I think it is more useful to
>use a definition like we have for the gene which does not have
>to replicate first.
The reason for adding this qualification was to distinguish memes from
ideas. If you can think of a better way to distinguish between these two
words, please let me know. (Tight definitions aren't really needed if you
have a deep understanding of the topic.)
> > >By analogy, a gene that has not yet been replicated is still a gene.
> >
> > I really don't understand how this could come about. How do you get a
> > gene, even on paper, that has not undergone some kind of replication?
>
>New genes are created through recombination and mutation.
Recombination is part of the replication (and repair) process. Mutation is
sometimes an error in replication or damage and failure to repair properly
before the next replication. Typically there is one or a small number of
base pair substitutions. You can call this a new gene if you
like--sometimes a single base pair substitution makes a life or death
difference--but it is just as legitimate to consider it the kind of
variation one typo makes in a few paragraphs when it is copied.
>If genes can
>only be inherited, then all existing genes must have existed since
>the beginning of time. Obviously this is not true. This must have come
>from somewhere other than replication.
We actually have a fair understanding of how genes got started, probably as
RNA because RNA can act as both an information storage medium and as a
active structure for replication. Random linkages are believe to have been
the origin of proto genes, after that it was replication down to this day.
>The analogy with genetics will be more intuitive and useful if
>we keep the models as similar as possible. Genes don't become
>genes only when they are replicated.
No, but with the exception of a small amount of human made DNA, all strings
of DNA base pairs come from a very long line of replication. That includes
the well over 90% of our genome that is just junk and is never
transcribed. Is this stuff that is getting a free ride (since we lack a
methods to get rid of it) genes? If you require a gene to be transcribed,
no. So what do you call it?
The three classes of replicators we know about so far are genes, memes and
computer viruses. They are all information patterns, but the differ in
their "normal active locus." To have effects on the real world a gene is
normally transcribed into protean. (There are exceptions, a few viroids
don't code for anything yet infect plants, and there are ribosome genes
that are transcribed only as far as RNA.) To be transcribed, the gene
needs to be in a locus, usually a cell, where the ancillary molecular
machines that "read it out" can be found. But the information doesn't
*have* to be in DNA or even in a cell. You can take a known gene sequence,
decode it to an amino acid sequence and use the data to run a protean
synthesizer. Injected insulin made this way works exactly the same as
insulin made in your very own Islets of Langerhans.
To have real world effects a meme has to be in a human brain/mind, a
computer virus in the right kind of computer. But I doubt this distinction
is going to survived more than a few decades. When you get human minds
mapped into computers, the computer minds (if they are accurate maps of the
original humans) are going to be just as subject to being infected by memes
as the humans were in biological minds.
>Memes are also created
>through recombination and mutation. Isn't that simpler and more
>powerful?
While these are the only way to get changes in genes, I am not sure
"recombination and mutation" are that important in memes. I don't believe
that any amount of recombination and mutation could have generated the
world shaking technological memes that have so strongly shaped our
world. You might differ in this assessment, but to think about some
examples, consider Watt's "separate condenser" meme, Pasteur's germ theory
meme and Darwin's evolution meme. Insight seems to me to have played a
larger role.
> > I don't find words that have been stretched to encompass everything
> > useful. If you have to ask what a meme "could possibly refer to" then I
> > have a hard time with it pointing to anything at all. This is no doubt my
> > engineering bias showing.
>
>Perhaps you misunderstood. If I mention a "revenge" meme, do you dismiss
>it out of hand, or do you try to find a possible meme that would fit
>that description?
Ok, I can buy that there would be a class of "revenge memes." "An eye for
an eye and a tooth for a tooth" would be one well known meme in this class
as well as "turn the other cheek."
> > You can tell the difference in a person who has learned some meme like
> > baseball. They can teach it to other people and independent observers can
> > make judgments in good agreement if the kids are playing something
> > recognizable as baseball. I don't see that there is an "I" meme that can
> > be learned or that there is an observable difference in behavior before
> and
> > after being taught an "I" meme.
> >
> > But I am always willing to be shown differently. Can you think of
> examples
> > where you could illustrate for the "I" meme?
>
>The "I" meme is the meme associated with the word "I". Animals don't have it
>because they don't have any words for "I". People with the "I" meme reveal
>themselves by using the word "I" correctly in context. Independent
>observers can make judgments in good agreement that the usage of the
>word is correct and the users understand the meaning of the word.
"The "the" meme is the meme associated with the word "the". Animals don't
have it
because they don't have any words for "the". People with the "the" meme reveal
themselves by using the word "the" correctly in context. Independent
observers can make judgments in good agreement that the usage of the
word is correct and the users understand the meaning of the word."
Considering every word to be a meme might be true, but it is not a very
interesting use of the term, especially when common words are learned very
early and there is little variation over the population. There are
exceptions where the use of a word or phrase spreads through the population
and is observed to do so. ("Filler" or sync bit words like "you know" are
in this class. The problem with using fillers to keep a channel from being
turned around instead of speaking slower or learning to think faster is
that adding filler words interferes with evolving what you are going to say
next and you have to keep adding, like, you know, more fillers. :-) )
Keith Henson
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 12 2003 - 18:57:22 MST