Static memes question

Post by hibbsa
I think I've asked this before but I don't recall the answer and can't find it in the archives.
The question is...what, if anything, rules out configurations whereby static memes become paired in such way each one not just reinforces the other, but literally provides the usefulness of the other.
An example of this would be where one meme creates a problem, that the other meme solves.
I think David Deutsch argued this couldn't happen, but I cannot see why that would be. It could surely come about by random chance?
Once such a pairing was in place it would amount to a powerful self-reinforcing dynamic that tended to drive copying of both.
The reason this came up again was in the course of re-reading "The Jump to Universality" chapter. Deutsch gives an interesting discussion revolving around the emergence of mathematics, with some examples of Roman numerals. How the rules for how numerals get added, multipled, replaced with higher order numerals and so on, literally created a reality whereby the numerals themselves were causing such operations to take place. In some meaningful sense.
Well...my idea about pairing actually doesn't propose anything not already present in this idea about the numerals. In a meaningful sense, the numerals aren't just doing the operations by themselves, they are also creating new possibilities for new kinds of problem to become not only defined, but also solved. The idea of accounting is one I think Deutsch mentions.
The point here is that, I think the numeral situation could probably be set up along the lines of this pairing effect. The pairing, for example could be between the operations the numerals do on themselves, and some new concept like accounting or inventory making that becomes a reality in the society as a result. Thereby reinforcing the usefulness of the numerals and the arithemetic operations, which in turn reinforce the operation of this concept of accounting.
Where these memes form structures with these mutually reinforcing causalities, the overall structure makes the copying and recurrence of all the individual memes that much more fixed-in and robust.
So in conclusion....
What was the objection, if any, to my proposal - which I don't regard as saying anything new or different - basically that where memes happen - perhaps randomly - to become paired, a force of natural selection will be felt by each meme, caused by the other.
Is this legitimate in your view?

Just to be upfront about where this is going. Unless there's a good explanation why arrangments like this can't happen in the first place, in my view working through consequences has the effect of progressively blurring the distinction of memes and inherited instincts. Certainly each exhibit different advantages, and as such things settle along combinational lines.

I appreciate I am just asserting the above, for now. As with other criticisms it seems important first to establish whether there is a good explanation for such arrangements never to happen. If that's the case, then there's no problem. No arrangement, no problem (as Stalin might have said).

David Deutsch

2013-06-13 15:14:42 UTC

It can and does happen. The memes are then jointly said to form a memeplex.

The boundaries of a memeplex are not well defined. To some extent, all memes are part of a giant memeplex.

Post by hibbsa
It could surely come about by random chance?

It comes about by evolution and design. Like all memes.

Post by hibbsa
Once such a pairing was in place it would amount to a powerful self-reinforcing dynamic that tended to drive copying of both.

Not necessarily more or less powerful than for a general meme.

Post by hibbsa
The reason this came up again was in the course of re-reading "The Jump to Universality" chapter. Deutsch gives an interesting discussion revolving around the emergence of mathematics, with some examples of Roman numerals. How the rules for how numerals get added, multipled, replaced with higher order numerals and so on, literally created a reality whereby the numerals themselves were causing such operations to take place. In some meaningful sense.
Well...my idea about pairing actually doesn't propose anything not already present in this idea about the numerals. In a meaningful sense, the numerals aren't just doing the operations by themselves, they are also creating new possibilities for new kinds of problem to become not only defined, but also solved. The idea of accounting is one I think Deutsch mentions.
The point here is that, I think the numeral situation could probably be set up along the lines of this pairing effect. The pairing, for example could be between the operations the numerals do on themselves, and some new concept like accounting or inventory making that becomes a reality in the society as a result. Thereby reinforcing the usefulness of the numerals and the arithemetic operations, which in turn reinforce the operation of this concept of accounting.
Where these memes form structures with these mutually reinforcing causalities, the overall structure makes the copying and recurrence of all the individual memes that much more fixed-in and robust.
So in conclusion....
What was the objection, if any, to my proposal - which I don't regard as saying anything new or different - basically that where memes happen - perhaps randomly - to become paired, a force of natural selection will be felt by each meme, caused by the other.
Is this legitimate in your view?

Genes are coded for in DNA and are inherited by DNA copying. Memes are coded for in the brain, and have to be re-created in each holder. There is a sharp distinction between them.

Genes and memes do sometimes co-evolve, though.

Post by hibbsa
Certainly each exhibit different advantages, and as such things settle along combinational lines.
I appreciate I am just asserting the above, for now. As with other criticisms it seems important first to establish whether there is a good explanation for such arrangements never to happen. If that's the case, then there's no problem. No arrangement, no problem (as Stalin might have said).

-- David Deutsch

hibbsa

2013-06-13 21:41:19 UTC

Post by hibbsa
I think David Deutsch argued this couldn't happen, but I cannot see why that would be.

It can and does happen. The memes are then jointly said to form a memeplex.

Thanks DD..my bad :0

Post by David Deutsch
The boundaries of a memeplex are not well defined. To some extent, all memes are part of a giant memeplex.

Post by hibbsa
It could surely come about by random chance?

It comes about by evolution and design. Like all memes.

Post by hibbsa
Just to be upfront about where this is going. Unless there's a good explanation why arrangments like this can't happen in the first place, in my view working through consequences has the effect of progressively blurring the distinction of memes and inherited instincts.

note to self: ah shuddup :o)

Post by David Deutsch
Genes are coded for in DNA and are inherited by DNA copying. Memes are coded for in the brain, and have to be re-created in each holder. There is a sharp distinction between them.
Genes and memes do sometimes co-evolve, though.

Oh say? What sort of scenario are you thinking of?

Hope CT going well.

Actually, if you're about I might try to grab your BoI and try fire off a post before you go again...jusst a couple of queries as I went over it again.

David Deutsch

2013-06-14 08:00:07 UTC

Post by David Deutsch
Genes and memes do sometimes co-evolve, though.

Oh say? What sort of scenario are you thinking of?

One example is that the hardware we use for speaking co-evolved with the evolution of languages.

An interesting one that was pointed out to me recently was that genes in dogs for following the direction of a human's gaze co-evolved with the human behavior of keeping dogs.

-- David Deutsch

hibbsa

2013-06-14 23:47:48 UTC

Post by David Deutsch
Genes and memes do sometimes co-evolve, though.

Oh say? What sort of scenario are you thinking of?

One example is that the hardware we use for speaking co-evolved with the evolution of languages.
An interesting one that was pointed out to me recently was that genes in dogs for following the direction of a human's gaze co-evolved with the human behavior of keeping dogs.
-- David Deutsch

So do you accept that memes can dominate a group by defining the in-group rules and behavious. While also dominate that in-groups exploititive attitude toward out-groups?

Or are you still saying something like group level evolution is criticized.

But 'group' is just a world. If a meme can dominate a society and make it static, then a group and its in-members is a society.

hibbsa

2013-06-23 21:20:41 UTC

Post by David Deutsch
Genes and memes do sometimes co-evolve, though.

Oh say? What sort of scenario are you thinking of?

One example is that the hardware we use for speaking co-evolved with the evolution of languages.
An interesting one that was pointed out to me recently was that genes in dogs for following the direction of a human's gaze co-evolved with the human behavior of keeping dogs.
-- David Deutsch

So do you accept that memes can dominate a group by defining the in-group rules and behavious. While also dominate that in-groups exploititive attitude toward out-groups?
Or are you still saying something like group level evolution is criticized.
But 'group' is just a world. If a meme can dominate a society and make it static, then a group and its in-members is a society.

Point being Prof. Deutsch, aren't you already allowing for a group - that group being a society - to be both static and essentially dominated by static or anti-rational memes?

Otherwise, there would have to be some special status of a 'society', in which case what would it be.

Bearing in mind societies interact with other societies. Therefore, a group of societies could be seen as the same thing as a set of groups within a society.

Or...by what real distinctions would this be disallowed?

Tony Balazs

2013-06-21 12:46:20 UTC

Post by David Deutsch
Genes and memes do sometimes co-evolve, though.

Oh say? What sort of scenario are you thinking of?

One example is that the hardware we use for speaking co-evolved with the evolution of languages.
An interesting one that was pointed out to me recently was that genes in dogs for following the direction of a human's gaze co-evolved with the human behavior of keeping dogs.
-- David Deutsch

How can one legitimately speak of "genes in dogs for following the direction of a human's gaze"? There are only 20,000 genes in the human genome (far fewer than anticipated) and probably a similar number in a dog's. If there were genes with such narrowly defined functions, there would have to be millions of them.

David Deutsch

2013-06-23 21:22:45 UTC

Post by Tony Balazs

Post by David Deutsch
Genes and memes do sometimes co-evolve, though.

Oh say? What sort of scenario are you thinking of?

One example is that the hardware we use for speaking co-evolved with the evolution of languages.
An interesting one that was pointed out to me recently was that genes in dogs for following the direction of a human's gaze co-evolved with the human behavior of keeping dogs.
-- David Deutsch

Presumably not all genes have such narrowly defined functions.

-- David Deutsch

Tony Balazs

2013-07-02 16:05:38 UTC

Sent from my iPad

Post by Tony Balazs