Re: Static memes question

On 13 Jun 2013, at 10:54, hibbsa <hibbsa-/[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> 
> --- In [email protected], "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:
>> 
>> 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 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.

>>  It could surely come about by random chance? 

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

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.

> 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