Behaviorist memetics
alt.memetics archives
March 24 - April 24, 7 - 13 June, 1995
Number of articles: 15 + 3
From: kgpl@uno.edu
Subject: Behaviorist Memetics
Date: 24 Mar 1995 07:27:23 GMT
Nothing I've seen on this newsgroup really seems to deal with
the idea of a "meme" in any formal or practical way, so I
figured I'd throw in a few thoughts and see where it leads. I
approach such things from a behaviorist perspective. This
means that none of the concepts used can rely on references
to what people are thinking, as a person's thinking cannot be
observed, only their behavior can. For lack of a better
term (and because I need a subject for this post) let's call
this "behaviorist memetics".
In this context, a "meme" becomes a "self-propagating code
of behavior". Also, certain actions increase the chances
that others will adopt certain codes of behavior. A code of
behavior propagates itself because it induces (in the infected
party) actions that increase the chances that others will adopt
it. Hence a religion that includes both:
1. the concept of an eternal paradise after death, and
2. the concept that the more people a believer converts
the more paradisical his or her afterlife will be
would be (at least potentially) self-propagating. Or course
behavior that doesn't contribute to its own propagation
("passenger behavior") can get glued to the behavior that does
("carrier" behavior). For example, given a religion that
claims that you will suffer eternal damnation if you don't
follow it's precepts exactly, those precepts being that:
1. you must attempt to convert as many others as
possible, and
2. you must tithe 10% of your income to the church
on a regular basis
Has one carrier behavior (item 1) and one passenger behavior
(item 2).
Propagating a new code of behavior requires that the infected
party either:
1. apply rewards or punishments to the next victim in line,
or
2. promise rewards or punishments to the next victim in
line, or
3. demonstrate the rewards or punishments he or she gained
via his or her own infection
Hence the carrier behavior must include one or more of items
1 through 3 above.
Or course there is no reason to believe that multiple memes
contained with a single person cannot interact, possibly
producing new memes in the process. Presumably this process
would involve some memetic analogue of the mechanisms that
are built into a classical genetic algorithm, those being
crossover, mutation and selection.
All of this leads the way to some potentially useful
discussion. A meme can be broken down into two parts.
The carrier portion and the passenger portion (if any).
Questions can now be asked, like "Given the desire to
propagate some specific passenger behavior, will one type
of carrier work better than another?". What kinds of
carriers work better in what kinds of psychological/social
environments? Are certain carriers incompatible, so that a
person already "infected" with one will tend not to accept
passengers riding on another? Does the answer to the
previous question allow people to be "inoculated" against
certain types of carriers? How do crossover and mutation
tend to occur in memes? Practical (I.E. not abstracted
from reality by about 12 astronomical units) answers to
these questions might be interesting.
Kevin
From: 3twc2@qlink.queensu.ca (Cook Thomas W)
Subject: Re: Behaviorist Memetics
Date: 24 Mar 1995 17:44:59 GMT
kgpl@uno.edu wrote:
:
: Nothing I've seen on this newsgroup really seems to deal with
: the idea of a "meme" in any formal or practical way, [snip]
There does seem to be a surprising lack of objectivity. IMHO, there are
too many attempts to further a political/philisophical agenda by leaping
to conclusions about a process we're only beginning to recognize exists.
: ... let's call this "behaviorist memetics".
as opposed to "advocative memetics"? :)
[examples using religous concepts snipped]
1) I don't quite understand your description of "carrier" and "passenger"
behaviours.
2) Isn't any reference to "concepts" against the "behavioural" viewpoint?
3) I think religous memes may be an exceptional case - most behaviours
seem to be transmitted/received without any cognitive thought.
Look at two close friends and one can see that they have picked up
many of each other's manerisms and pronunciations. In my opinion,
it's these little things that are closest to a meme/gene analogy.
As another poster put it, religons are "memeosomes" - large
blocks of memes that interact to give rise to complex behaviours
we observe.
: Or course there is no reason to believe that multiple memes
: contained with a single person cannot interact, possibly
: producing new memes in the process. Presumably this process
: would involve some memetic analogue of the mechanisms that
: are built into a classical genetic algorithm, those being
: crossover, mutation and selection.
I would use the metaphore of island populations. Communication within a
person happens faster than communication between people. There may be
many memes within a person that give rise to contradictory concepts.
However, all we see it the "migration" between "islands".
: Are certain carriers incompatible, so that a
: person already "infected" with one will tend not to accept
: passengers riding on another?
This would be analogous to one species already being established in a
niche when another arrives. I'm wary of immune system analogies because
it enforces the meme-as-virus analogy I dislike.
: Practical (I.E. not abstracted from reality by about 12 astronomical
: units) answers to these questions might be interesting.
This is a very good point. The metaphores are flying fast and loose and
it would be good to see some data (or even good experimental designs) that
would distinguish between competing views objectively). Of course, as a
mathematician, I'm sort of trapped in an abstract world with my little
thought experiments. [ no pun intended :) ]
Thomas.
From: hingh@xs4all.nl (Marc)
Subject: Re: Behaviorist Memetics
Date: 25 Mar 1995 15:17:52 GMT
Kevin writes:
%% I approach such things from a behaviorist perspective. This
%% means that none of the concepts used can rely on references
%% to what people are thinking, as a person's thinking cannot be
%% observed, only their behavior can.
The problem with this approach is that you cannot explain why some
memes are more successful than others without taking into account the
(invisible) cognitive and psychological processes involved.
Memes not only compete to infect new hosts (fecundity), they also must
compete to remain in the host's brain (longevity). The latter type of
competition gives rise to complex cognitive structures, which are also
reflected in (visible) behavior patterns.
For example:
%% behavior that doesn't contribute to its own propagation
%% ("passenger behavior") can get glued to the behavior that does
%% ("carrier" behavior). For example, given a religion that
%% claims that you will suffer eternal damnation if you don't
%% follow it's precepts exactly, those precepts being that:
%% 1. you must attempt to convert as many others as
%% possible, and
%% 2. you must tithe 10% of your income to the church
%% on a regular basis
%% Has one carrier behavior (item 1) and one passenger behavior
%% (item 2).
Sacrificing (item 2) has the effect of strongly attaching the host to
his religion: in order to justify the sacrificing to himself, the host
must think of the religion as something very important. If he doesn't,
he will create an internal conflict (cognitive dissonance).
[compare: when you have bought something very expensive, you want
to believe it is valuable, even if it turns out to be worthless]
This type of mechanisms are not just 'passenger' parts of the meme, but
essential to the propagation of the meme.
Parts of a replicator that do not contribute to its propagation are
'excess baggage', and will be selected away in the course of evolution.
%% Propagating a new code of behavior requires that the infected
%% party either:
%% 1. apply rewards or punishments to the next victim in line,
%% or
%% 2. promise rewards or punishments to the next victim in
%% line, or
%% 3. demonstrate the rewards or punishments he or she gained
%% via his or her own infection
Some behavior can be learned more easily than other behavior because of
the structure of the brain or other aspects of mental organization (e.g.
memes already present).
This means that a behavioral meme can be successful without
reward/punishment mechanisms, and still affect visible behavior.
You cannot draw conclusions about reality from a restrictive methodology.
For an alternative methodology, take a look at Dennett's method of
"heterophenomenology" (ch.4 of Consciousness Explained).
Marc
From: kgpl@uno.edu
Subject: Behaviorist Memetics
Date: 30 Mar 1995 16:41:16 GMT
From: 3twc2@qlink.queensu.ca (Cook Thomas W):
> I don't quite understand your description of "carrier" and "passenger"
> behaviors.
A carrier behavior is a behavior that, by itself, is sufficient to
cause self-propagation. An example would be the behavior of
preaching the message that "all who don't preach this message will
burn in hell". Anyone who is convinced will adopt the same behavior.
On the other hand, the behavior of tithing to the church does not
propagate itself. In order to get tithing behavior to spread you
must attach it to another, self-propagating behavior. It is
"carried" by the other behavior and is called "passenger" behavior.
> Isn't any reference to "concepts" against the "behavioral" viewpoint?
For the most part, yes. The problem here is that while I am a
behaviorist/empiricist I am infected with the English language. And
the English language (and most natural languages, I suspect) tend to
force you to express things in non-behaviorist terms. Moreover,
English tends to force you to *think* in non-behaviorist terms. But
I make every effort to overcome this. :)
> ...most behaviors seem to be transmitted/received without any
> cognitive thought. Look at two close friends and one can see that
> they have picked up many of each other's mannerisms and
> pronunciations.
Good point. Perhaps a new term is needed to distinguish these
behaviors. "Pseudo-memes"? :)
>> Or course there is no reason to believe that multiple memes
>> contained with a single person cannot interact, possibly
>> producing new memes in the process. Presumably this process
>> would involve some memetic analogue of the mechanisms that
>> are built into a classical genetic algorithm, those being
>> crossover, mutation and selection.
> I would use the metaphor of island populations...
I don't want to sacrifice the genetic metaphor too early, because of
the interesting questions it raises. Take the notion of "crossover"
for example. If two sets of memetic behavior infect the same person
(sorry, but viral terminology is temptingly apt) for example, can any
associated passenger behavior cross over? Let me introduce some new
terminology here to explain this. Let's assign behaviors to letters
for ease of expression. We'll use capital letters for carriers and
small letters for passengers (I think I'm gonna begin collecting all
this behaviorist memetics terminology in a FAQ soon as my next math
test is over...). To say that a passenger p is riding on carrier C we
will write "Cp". We will also assume that more than one carrier can be
associated with the same passenger, and more than one passenger can be
associated with the same carrier (notation examples: "ABc", "Abc" and
"ABcd"). Finally, where relevant, we'll assume that a "dictionary"
will be provided, associating letters with relevant behaviors (like
"a = tithe to the church"). So the question of crossover becomes:
If a person is infected with both Ab and Cd, under what circumstances
might he wind up generating Ad and Cb? Or will passengers gravitate
to the most efficient carrier, so that if A is a more successful
carrier than C you will get Abd? And like that. Quick side note, if
A is a more successful carrier than B, should we say that "A > B"?
The obvious problem being that in different circumstances the
inequality could go the other way.
>> Are certain carriers incompatible, so that a
>> person already "infected" with one will tend not to accept
>> passengers riding on another?
> This would be analogous to one species already being established in
> a niche when another arrives. I'm wary of immune system analogies
> because it enforces the meme-as-virus analogy I dislike.
I agree it has unfortunate connotations, but a tool is a tool is a tool.
I sense the need for a symbol to express the idea that two memes are
incompatible. Perhaps a "|"? I kinda want to keep to standard ASCII in
cases like this where an ASCII communications medium is involved, but...
> ..it would be good to see some data (or even good experimental designs)
> that would distinguish between competing views objectively).
Unfortunately, like most social sciences, this kind of thing is rather
hard to construct experiments for. :( However I don't think memetics
is near that point yet. The best approach is probably to lay down
basic concepts and relationships, develop a symbology, use it to make
predictions, then start changing everything around to bring the
predictions in line with observed reality.
Kevin
From: kgpl@uno.edu
Subject: Behaviorist Memetics
Date: 30 Mar 1995 16:41:47 GMT
From: hingh@xs4all.nl (Marc):
> The problem with this approach is that you cannot explain why some
> memes are more successful than others without taking into account the
> (invisible) cognitive and psychological processes involved.
I disagree. When it comes to psychology I am a pure behaviorist (a la
B.F. Skinner). Likewise, philosophically, I am a logical positivist
(a rather extreme sub-school of empiricism). I agree that most people
do not fall into either of these two categories but this is the only
approach that I feel has any hope here. One of the main reasons I gave
this thread it's the name "*behaviorist* memetics" was to distinguish it
from any non-behaviorist approach and discourage discussion (within this
thread) from degenerating into non-behaviorist areas. Not that I want
to stifle someone else's non-behaviorist approach, just that I find that
if you don't go to some effort to keep things on-track any behaviorist
discussion tends to go downhill fast. First the behaviorist paradigm
itself is attacked (for some reason a lot of people not only disagree
with behaviorism, they are emotional about their disagreement), then all
behaviorist discussion disappears in a flood of non-behaviorist
discussion, never to return. I want to make sure that a relatively pure
behaviorist memetics approach appears, and carves out a permanent niche
for itself.
> Memes not only compete to infect new hosts (fecundity), they also must
> compete to remain in the host's brain (longevity).
An excellent and valuable distinction.
> Parts of a replicator that do not contribute to its propagation are
> 'excess baggage', and will be selected away in the course of evolution.
This is an incredibly powerful assertion. But I am *real* skeptical
about it. I'd want to see some hard evidence for this one.
Kevin
From: hingh@xs4all.nl (Marc)
Subject: Re: Behaviorist Memetics
Date: 31 Mar 1995 18:07:49 GMT
>> The problem with this approach is that you cannot explain why some
>> memes are more successful than others without taking into account the
>> (invisible) cognitive and psychological processes involved.
>One of the main reasons I gave
>this thread it's the name "*behaviorist* memetics" was to distinguish it
>from any non-behaviorist approach and discourage discussion (within this
>thread) from degenerating into non-behaviorist areas.
That's a good one!
Scientology church: "One of the reasons we called this newsgroup
alt.religion.scientology is to discourage participation of
non-scientologists."
>> Parts of a replicator that do not contribute to its propagation are
>> 'excess baggage', and will be selected away in the course of evolution.
>This is an incredibly powerful assertion. But I am *real* skeptical
>about it. I'd want to see some hard evidence for this one.
If you understand the replicator model, this property of replicators
("selfishness") is self-explanatory.
Asking for empirical evidence makes no sense here, because selfishness
*defines* the replicator. In other words: if you think you've found a
replicator that is *not* selfish, it *is* no replicator.
(This may sound like immunity to falsification, but it isn't, it's just
an axiom without which there is no theory at all.)
Would your behaviorism allow modern (post-behaviorist) empirical methods,
like the ones used in brain research etc.?
Marc
From: dbayly@homebase.tiac.net (David Bayly)
Subject: Re: Behaviorist Memetics
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 1995 23:24:56 -0400
In article <3lhgdl$lre@news.xs4all.nl>, hingh@xs4all.nl (Marc) wrote:
> >> Parts of a replicator that do not contribute to its propagation are
> >> 'excess baggage', and will be selected away in the course of evolution.
> >This is an incredibly powerful assertion. But I am *real* skeptical
> >about it. I'd want to see some hard evidence for this one.
>
> If you understand the replicator model, this property of replicators
> ("selfishness") is self-explanatory.
> Asking for empirical evidence makes no sense here, because selfishness
> *defines* the replicator. In other words: if you think you've found a
> replicator that is *not* selfish, it *is* no replicator.
> (This may sound like immunity to falsification, but it isn't, it's just
> an axiom without which there is no theory at all.)
>
The axiom comment while true is a little misleading. An infinite number of
trails is implied to achieve the "perfectly functional" replicator. Also,
there must be selection pressure on the phenotype analog in the selfish
gene model. I'm not sure I know what the phenotype of meme is, but then
I'm not sure what a meme is either...
(this line required by my IP)
-David Bayly dbayly@homebase.tiac.net Programmer/skeptic.
An idea to recycle? In medieval Britian, Windows were taxed!
From: hingh@xs4all.nl (Marc)
Subject: Re: Behaviorist Memetics
Date: 7 Apr 1995 07:07:52 GMT
David Bayly:
>> If you understand the replicator model, this property of replicators
>> ("selfishness") is self-explanatory.
>> Asking for empirical evidence makes no sense here, because selfishness
>> *defines* the replicator. In other words: if you think you've found a
>> replicator that is *not* selfish, it *is* no replicator.
>> (This may sound like immunity to falsification, but it isn't, it's just
>> an axiom without which there is no theory at all.)
>>
THE AXiOM COMMENT WHiLE TRUE iS A LiTTLE MiSLEADiNG. AN iNFiNiTE NUMBER OF
TRAiLS iS iMPLiED TO ACHiEVE THE "PERFECTLY FUNCTiONAL" REPLiCATOR.
Does this make the so-called "carrier" part of the meme the 'perfectly
functional' part of the replicator, and the "passenger" part something that
has not got enough 'trails' yet?? I'm *real* skeptical about it ;)
How do you draw the line between the two parts of a meme (some aspects of
the seeming "passenger" may be functional for fecundity/longevity of the
meme; some aspects of what looks like the "carrier" may be not functional)
THERE MUST BE SELECTiON PRESSURE ON THE PHENOTYPE ANALOG iN THE SELFiSH
GENE MODEL. i'M NOT SURE i KNOW WHAT THE PHENOTYPE OF MEME iS, BUT THEN
i'M NOT SURE WHAT A MEME iS EiTHER...
As I see it, the meme is phenotype-only. Lacking a universal code to
replicate mechanically (dna), the replication of its structure depends on
fuzzy causal chains and all kinds of statistical effects.
The meme/phenotype evolves inside the brain, analogous to the life cycle
(ontogeny?) of a biological organism. It can have effects outside the host
brain, analogous to Dawkins' "extended phenotype". These effects must
build a copy of the original meme/phenotype in a new brain.
I would like to hear if this is an acceptable view.
++Marc
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Behaviorist Memetics
Date: 10 Apr 1995 09:53:21 GMT
>When it comes to psychology I am a pure behaviorist (a la B.F. Skinner).
That surprised me. I didn't know there still existed pure behaviorists.
>Likewise, philosophically, I am a logical positivist (a rather extreme
>sub-school of empiricism).
This surprised me even more!
>I want to make sure that a relatively pure
>behaviorist memetics approach appears, and carves out a permanent niche
>for itself.
Although it is hard for me to understand how it is possible to adhere to a
strictly behaviorist model, it is a very important model for memetics. Memes have
many strategies of survival. Two of them are the behavioristic concepts of
classical and operant conditioning, eroding themselves into their hosts' minds.
In fact to see a prime example of a behaviorist memetic model see my article "The
Evolutionary Structure of the School System". There is plenty of room for
behaviorism in memetics. In fact, I would say that memetics is primarily a
behavioristic theory. That's its strength, but also its weakness. Memetics will
never be able to explain social organization completely. In order to do that you
need a model which combines a cognitive model with a sociological and an
bio-evolutionary model. Of course, memetics will play an important role in such a
theory, but alone it is limited.
>> Parts of a replicator that do not contribute to its propagation are
>> 'excess baggage', and will be selected away in the course of evolution.
>
>This is an incredibly powerful assertion. But I am *real* skeptical
>about it. I'd want to see some hard evidence for this one.
I'd actually say that the opposite is true. Look at the "QWERTY" keyboard-system.
It was created in the 1890's to solve a typewriter problem. People learnt to
write so fast that the typewriter jammed. The solution? Create a keyboard that
was so unefficient and hard to write on that it slowed down people's writing. Of
course, the technical problem vanished a few decades later and rendered the
QWERTY keyboard pointless. But did it disappear? Naah! We're still typing on that
keyboard. This is a prime example of a meme that does not contribute to its own
propagation. Other examples are Microsoft products. :-) Actually I would say that
the survival of baggage memes is one of the most typical aspects of cultural
evolution. Very many things that survive loose their original meaning but live
on as baggage.
Onar.
From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Re: Behaviorist Memetics
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 02:31:01 GMT
hingh@xs4all.nl (Marc) writes:
> As I see it, the meme is phenotype-only.
Information patterns which can be replicated with
large but finite fidelity from substrate to substrate
are all that is required for evolution. It is
obvious that the physical and behavioral morphologies
resulting from such information patterns are not
the information patterns themselves, but rather the
programs which the living organism, in conjunction
with its ecology, interprets as the phenotype of
the information pattern.
Basically, this is the central dogma of neo-Darwinian
evolution -- that the information pattern is
transmitted, mutated and selected based on its
ability to create phenotypes that aid in its
further transmission.
It hardly matters that we are talking genotypes,
memotypes or electronic digital systems.
It is, of course, significant that memes are more
likely to undergo direct memetic engineering by
higher order thought processes -- and such has
certainly occured throughout the history of
politics. But this is not the same as Lamarkian
evolution anymore than genetic engineering is
Lamarkian evolution. It is merely engineering.
--
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
Change the tools and you change the rules.
From: kgpl@uno.edu
Subject: Behavioral Memetics
Date: 20 Apr 1995 11:03:36 GMT
From: hingh@xs4all.nl (Marc)
> How do you draw the line between the two parts of a meme (some aspects
> of the seeming "passenger" may be functional for fecundity/longevity of
> the meme; some aspects of what looks like the "carrier" may be not
> functional)
Correct. Certainly a more precise definition of "carrier" and "passenger"
behavior is needed. Actually, I was kind of hoping someone else here could
figure out the hard stuff like that. :)
From: kgpl@uno.edu
Subject: Behavioral Memetics
Date: 20 Apr 1995 11:04:13 GMT
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
> That surprised me. I didn't know there still existed pure behaviorists.
We're a small group, but we're *real* militant about it! :)
> [your being a logical positivist] surprised me even more!
This is the source of my behaviorism. Actually I am not a *pure* logical
positivist (that is, I have some disagreements with the school) but I am
close enough to make distinctions meaningless in most contexts.
> In fact to see a prime example of a behaviorist memetic model see my
> article "The Evolutionary Structure of the School System".
Where does this article appear?
> Memetics will never be able to explain social organization completely.
> In order to do that you need a model which combines a cognitive model
> with a sociological and an bio-evolutionary model. Of course, memetics
> will play an important role in such a theory, but alone it is limited.
Bite your metaphysical tongue! :) Although memetics (if anything ever
comes of it) will no doubt not be sufficient in itself to explain all
aspects of social behavior, any model that does will have to be reducible
to a purely observational one without losing any of its predictive power.
Of course it's possible that those few of you out there who are not
positivists might not agree...
> I'd actually say that the opposite is true. Look at the "QWERTY"
> keyboard-system.
I'm still just as skeptical about the original claim, but I don't think
that this is a valid counter-example. Most people are still trained to
type on a QWERTY keyboard. Having the QWERTY meme makes a typewriter more
successful at getting sold, which makes the manufacturer more money, which
means those manufacturers will produce more QWERTY typewriters, etc. In
otherwords, the QWERTY behavior is probably carrier behavior, not passenger
behavior. Although this does point out the need for a more precise
definition of "carrier" and "passenger" behavior.
From: kgpl@uno.edu
Subject: Behavioral Memetics
Date: 20 Apr 1995 11:04:43 GMT
From: hanss@tudelft.nl (Hans-Cees Speel)
> I see memetics as considering the ways ideas can influence behavior. To
> see why ideas are accepted, you need the biological variables [and
> cognitive] of humans. The idea as replicator is selected by humans and
> these variables play a role in this. I see these processes as part of a
> memetic science. How ideas can in their turn influence what other ideas
> are selected inhuman thought, and in the thought in groups seems important
> to me. It is in the core of memetics in my opinion.
From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
> Information patterns which can be replicated with large but finite fidelity
> from substrate to substrate are all that is required for evolution. It is
> obvious that the physical and behavioral morphologies resulting from such
> information patterns are not the information patterns themselves, but rather
> the programs which the living organism, in conjunction with its ecology,
> interprets as the phenotype of the information pattern.
> Basically, this is the central dogma of neo-Darwinian evolution -- that the
> information pattern is transmitted, mutated and selected based on its ability
> to create phenotypes that aid in its further transmission.
Indeed it seems so. Reconciling these ideas with a completely behaviorist
paradigm promises to be difficult. But I have no doubt that, if there is
anything to memetics, it can be done.
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Behavioral Memetics
Date: 21 Apr 1995 13:53:34 GMT
>> In fact to see a prime example of a behaviorist memetic model see my
>> article "The Evolutionary Structure of the School System".
>
>Where does this article appear?
Well, it appeared here for a start. April 6, I think. Anyway, you can find it on
my web-page:
http://www.hsr.no/~onar/
You will also find my most recent article on memetics "The Magic Mirrorhouse" in
which I model the meme as a cultural photon. My third article in the series on
memetics will appear soon: "The NK Model Applied to Memetics" and a fourth
article in which I ground behaviorism in the new sciences is under development:
"World, Behave". (And I'm not even supposed to do these things. *You're* the
behaviorist, not me :-)
>> I'd actually say that the opposite is true. Look at the "QWERTY"
>> keyboard-system.
>
>I'm still just as skeptical about the original claim, but I don't think
>that this is a valid counter-example. Most people are still trained to
>type on a QWERTY keyboard. Having the QWERTY meme makes a typewriter more
>successful at getting sold, which makes the manufacturer more money, which
>means those manufacturers will produce more QWERTY typewriters, etc. In
>otherwords, the QWERTY behavior is probably carrier behavior, not passenger
>behavior. Although this does point out the need for a more precise
>definition of "carrier" and "passenger" behavior.
No, I have to arrest you here. The QWERTY meme is parasiting on another meme, the
meme of STANDARDS. Through hundreds of years of trade and cultural exchange in
the West we've learned that cooperation needs driving rules to make it work. One
of these driving rules is the standard language. Although a product is less
efficient than a competing product it may be more successful because it is
standard. No-one can seriously say that Microsoft Windows is good compared to
other operative systems (Even IBM's Warp is better). Even so it is the most
successful operative system in the world at present (if we disregard -gasp-
MS-DOS which is so bad I don't even want to think about it :-)
Onar.
From: thoughts@mack.rt66.com (Thought Factory)
Subject: Re: Behavioral Memetics
Date: 24 Apr 1995 22:08:50 -0600
In article <3n5f28$j1l@www.uno.edu> kgpl@uno.edu writes:
>
>From: hingh@xs4all.nl (Marc)
>
>> How do you draw the line between the two parts of a meme (some aspects
>> of the seeming "passenger" may be functional for fecundity/longevity of
>> the meme; some aspects of what looks like the "carrier" may be not
>> functional)
>
>Correct. Certainly a more precise definition of "carrier" and "passenger"
>behavior is needed. Actually, I was kind of hoping someone else here could
>figure out the hard stuff like that. :)
Well, though many people do NOT like the comparison between a meme and a
virus, a virus has two parts the first part ensures it's survival (a
protein coat) and the second is the actual virus' action.
So, the carrier would be the "protein coat" that keeps the virus alive
until it can replicate the actual viral matter.
For example, an unopened book while still closed and remaining in storage
allows the message inside to remain intact. The book itself is a virus,
whether that book be a Dictionary or a Trashy Pornographic novel. The
virus remains potent as long as it can still be read, and the book remains
intact. As soon as the pages fade, the book gets ripped apart, etc, the
message remains intact.
Now what does this "protein" coat include?
--
Thought Factory, Inc.____________________________thoughts@rt66.com
1208 San Pedro NE #172___________________________________Bob Kelly
Albuquerque, NM 87110_______________________________(505) 255-5205
From: hanss@tudelft.nl (Hans-Cees Speel)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: Behaviorist Memetics
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 14:25:41
I
>approach such things from a behaviorist perspective. This
>means that none of the concepts used can rely on references
>to what people are thinking,
But you do rely on a religion that says to spread i5t. So you do not deny
there is thinking, but only draw conclusions out of berhavioristic data [if I
see it right].
as a person's thinking cannot be
>observed, only their behavior can. For lack of a better
>term (and because I need a subject for this post) let's call
>this "behaviorist memetics".
It is what Dawkins does too
>
>In this context, a "meme" becomes a "self-propagating code
>of behavior".
I would say that self-propagated is too easy. It can also be the social/psych
environment that propagates it. If the 'niche' of a group is a kind of problem
to be solved [to get food] a meme helping in that will be propagated. So the
self-propagation is environment-bounded
Also, certain actions increase the chances
>that others will adopt certain codes of behavior. A code of
>behavior propagates itself because it induces (in the infected
>party) actions that increase the chances that others will adopt
>it. Hence a religion that includes both:
>
> 1. the concept of an eternal paradise after death, and
> 2. the concept that the more people a believer converts
> the more paradisical his or her afterlife will be
>
>would be (at least potentially) self-propagating.
Of course these examples are not-behavioristic
Or course
>behavior that doesn't contribute to its own propagation
>("passenger behavior") can get glued to the behavior that does
>("carrier" behavior). For example, given a religion that
>claims that you will suffer eternal damnation if you don't
>follow it's precepts exactly, those precepts being that:
>
> 1. you must attempt to convert as many others as
> possible, and
> 2. you must tithe 10% of your income to the church
> on a regular basis
>
>Has one carrier behavior (item 1) and one passenger behavior
>(item 2).
this depends on your interpretation. Without item two, it could be that item
one would lose its propagation-function.
>
>Propagating a new code of behavior requires that the infected
>party either:
>
>1. apply rewards or punishments to the next victim in line,
> or
>2. promise rewards or punishments to the next victim in
> line, or
>3. demonstrate the rewards or punishments he or she gained
> via his or her own infection
It can also be that just the copy-bahavior gives the organism that copies it a
good feeling [some kind of reward]. Like the song-example. That would be under
three, but in a different sence. 3 would be 3a: demonstrate rewards and 3b:
the copying itsself is a reward
I always see this difference as the reward being a peace og the environment,
or being a peace of the psychological features
So it can be that a behavior is very rewarding, but damn-hard to copy [learn]
>
>Hence the carrier behavior must include one or more of items
>1 through 3 above.
>
>Or course there is no reason to believe that multiple memes
>contained with a single person cannot interact, possibly
>producing new memes in the process. Presumably this process
>would involve some memetic analogue of the mechanisms that
>are built into a classical genetic algorithm, those being
>crossover, mutation and selection.
Indeed the question arizes: if a new meme arizes, that has parts of old memes
in them, is this a new meme, or some variation. I think we would find that
some interactions are better with respect to copying, or with respect to
rewarding
>
>All of this leads the way to some potentially useful
>discussion. A meme can be broken down into two parts.
>The carrier portion and the passenger portion (if any).
>Questions can now be asked, like "Given the desire to
>propagate some specific passenger behavior, will one type
>of carrier work better than another?". What kinds of
>carriers work better in what kinds of psychological/social
>environments? Are certain carriers incompatible, so that a
>person already "infected" with one will tend not to accept
>passengers riding on another? Does the answer to the
>previous question allow people to be "inoculated" against
>certain types of carriers?
This can be seen in belief-systems of people [this ius not-behavioristic in
the sence that it uses concepts] where believing in economics is often seen as
incompatible with believing in the environment as important
How do crossover and mutation
>tend to occur in memes? Practical
there are practical studies in policy-formation that do this. Though they will
never call it memetics, of course.
If you think usenet is too crowded for a good discussion, just mail me. That
is more quiet
Hans-Cees
From: djeopm@telerama.lm.com (Sourcerer)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: Behaviorist Memetics
Date: 7 Jun 1995 10:13:12 -0400
In article <3r3mdq$lpf@www.uno.edu>, <kgpl@uno.edu> wrote:
>
>From my first post on the subject:
>
>
>Nothing I've seen on this newsgroup really seems to deal with
>the idea of a "meme" in any formal or practical way, so I
>figured I'd throw in a few thoughts and see where it leads. I
>approach such things from a behaviorist perspective. This
>means that none of the concepts used can rely on references
>to what people are thinking, as a person's thinking cannot be
>observed, only their behavior can. For lack of a better
>term (and because I need a subject for this post) let's call
>this "behaviorist memetics".
Actually, you can simply call it "memetics", because there is nothing in
your statement which is not consistent with Dawkins, especially in
reference to his book "The Extended Phenotype" (1982)
Dawkins applied his approach to genes to the stufy of cultural effects.
That approach's focus is not on the individual biological organism or
populations of organisms (or ecosystems, for that matter) but the genetic
(and memetic) unit itself. This avoids issues of "thinking" and
"subjectivity" altogether. Your emphasis on "behavior" fits seamlessly
with Dawkin's emphasis on "phenotypic effect" (or "expression").
If one follows Dawkins, then memetics is a thoroughly materialistic,
objective, and empirical
>In this context, a "meme" becomes a "self-propagating code
>of behavior". Also, certain actions increase the chances
>that others will adopt certain codes of behavior. A code of
>behavior propagates itself because it induces (in the infected
>party) actions that increase the chances that others will adopt
>it.
If you allow that a "code of behavior" = "phenotypic effect", then there
is nothing inconsistent, that I can see, with your understanding of the
process and Dawkin's. Dawkins believes a meme is a definite pattern
of synaptic structure, and that the "behaviors" or "effects" we observe
and respond to, are not memes -- just as my two blue eyes are not a
gene-pair, but the phenotypic effect of a gene-pair.
>Or course there is no reason to believe that multiple memes
>contained with a single person cannot interact, possibly
>producing new memes in the process. Presumably this process
>would involve some memetic analogue of the mechanisms that
>are built into a classical genetic algorithm, those being
>crossover, mutation and selection.
Dawkins is explicit on such interaction (it is required by his
genetic conceptual model of memes).
--
(__) Sourcerer
/(<>)\ O|O|O|O||O||O "I arise, a corpse already wept, and live."
\../ |OO|||O|||O|O --Maximian
|| OO|||OO||O||O
From: kgpl@uno.edu
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Behaviorist Memetics
Date: 13 Jun 1995 08:15:00 GMT
Our newsfeed is a bit spotty so it is only today that I found out about
all the responses my posts generated. It's a bit late so I'll just
enter some quick responses to the high points right now.
1. Some of my "behaviorist" comments seem to contain non-behaviorist
elements.
Probably so. While I am a behaviorist at heart I was brought up in
a non-behaviorist environment speaking a language which has a lot
of non-behaviorist elements built in. So my own perception is not
perfect and even where I do mean things in a perfectly behaviorist
fashion I may not express it that way. I do the best I can. With
luck, if the formal system of notation ever progresses beyond where
it is now, a lot of that will get corrected.
2. Behaviorist memetics is just memetics. It is entirely consistent
with Dawkin's work.
I'll take your word for it. I've never read his work. I picked up
what little I know about it from this newsgroup, hence my confusion
about terminology. Who knows. I may actually have to read the man's
book sometime soon. :)
3. The "cow-problem".
Frankly, I can't even figure out what the problem is. I can't go all
the way back to the original posts, but they seemed to involve some
variation on the question of "given the existence of a cow, where is
the 'cow meme' located?". To which I can only reply "What, exactly,
is the self-propogating code of behavior in which the cow is engaging?"
I.E. I don't see where that has anything to do with memetics. On
the other hand there's been a lot of talk about levels of consciousness.
Not having much of an idea about what "consciousness" is I can't really
comment. There's that nasty empiricism again. :)
4. Pigeons demonstrate behavior that indicates that they have a
"self image". How does this fit in with behaviorism/memetics?
A much more interesting question. I'm probably way too tired to work
on that one right now. It won't cause any problems for empiricism
or behaviorism. You can't make a non-empiricist meaningful statement.
Any meaningful statements about the pigeon's self-image must be
empirical, and hence can be incorporated into an empirical system,
given a lot of data and a really smart scientist. :) Whether or not
pigeons forming self-images yields important clues about memetics is
completely beyond me at the moment, I'm afraid.
I'm off before my head hits the keyboard. I'm a poor speller by
nature. Any typos or stupidities beyond my usual number are probably
due to my lack of sleep. :)
Kevin