Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Experiments: The Sentence as the Meme

0 views
Skip to first unread message

John Bailo

unread,
Nov 28, 2004, 10:05:17 PM11/28/04
to

As you know, my pet theory is that a writen English sentence is a direct
representation of a meme. Let us remember, that text and print, in
widespread use, is a /technology/ -- as McLuhan tells us. The beauty
of this technology is that it is a direct representation of what a meme
is in the mind, and hence why text is the most abundant carrier for the
meme.

I have been challenged to provide some experiments to test this theory.

Here is one...others will follow:

Experiment One:

Create a nonsense sentence.

Check the digital copying trueness over multiple copies.

So, take a sentence, using proper english syntax, but with no meaning.

"The cat made lemonade."

Check its copying veracity.

Then check with a sentence that is "possible".

"The cat played with the ball."

See if there are any variations in the copying between the two.

Other experiments to follow...

jabailo.vcf

mWarrior

unread,
Nov 28, 2004, 10:51:22 PM11/28/04
to

"John Bailo" <jab...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Nlwqd.6158$NU3....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Your theory and your experiment have merit. I think you are on the right
track. I'm a little confused about how to carry out you experiment though.
How do I check the copying veracity?


John Flynn

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 3:38:41 AM11/29/04
to
John Bailo wrote:

> As you know, my pet theory is that a writen English sentence is a direct
> representation of a meme. Let us remember, that text and print, in
> widespread use, is a /technology/ -- as McLuhan tells us. The beauty
> of this technology is that it is a direct representation of what a meme
> is in the mind, and hence why text is the most abundant carrier for the
> meme.

Speech is more abundant than text, but let's just push that one aside again.

> I have been challenged to provide some experiments to test this theory.
>
> Here is one...others will follow:
>
> Experiment One:
>
> Create a nonsense sentence.
>
> Check the digital copying trueness over multiple copies.
>
> So, take a sentence, using proper english syntax, but with no meaning.
>
> "The cat made lemonade."
>
> Check its copying veracity.
>
> Then check with a sentence that is "possible".
>
> "The cat played with the ball."
>
> See if there are any variations in the copying between the two.
>
> Other experiments to follow...

Your "meaningless" sentence does have a consistency, though, and what
you're relying on is the semantics of the idea to carry the "meaningful"
sentence faithfully. The trouble with your test sentence is that it
conforms to an "ACTOR + ACTION + GOAL" pattern. Clearly, this does have
meaning and it is not nonsense. (It also reflects one of those "Improve
Your Memory In 10 Days!" techniques, where you have to associate important
things with silly images. The mental image of a cat making lemonade is
one that does not cause any problems to conjure up even though it might
not be physically possible in the Real World, simply because you have a
basic underlying "ACTOR+ACTION+GOAL" structure.)

And as mWarrior mentions, how do we check the copying fidelity? That is,
how will the experiment be carried out? How would you prevent 'spoken'
words (even those that we 'say' to ourselves in our heads) from being
included in the transmission process and making the message take a leap
from one medium to another, thereby introducing another variable that is
not being controlled?

If you post the actual method used for this experiment then we might be
able to see what it is testing and what (if any) flaws are in the method
that need to be addressed.

--
johnF
"Perhaps biology would have been able to mature more rapidly in a culture
not dominated by Judeo-Christian theology and the Romantic tradition."
-- _Adaptation and Natural Selection_, George C Williams

John Flynn

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 12:53:44 PM11/29/04
to
mWarrior wrote:

> I have been thinking about your experiment and I thought of another
> one that could be carried out to prove your theory....
>
>
> 1. Two groups of people(Group A and B) are assembled and one member of
> each is place in seperate rooms.
>
> 2. A sentence is provided to both members of the two groups. The same
> sentence(perferably a catchy one like a joke or a slogan).
>
> 3. Next another member of each group is sent into their respective
> rooms.
>
> 4. Group A's task is to say the sentence to their group member and
> then leave the room.
> Group B's task is to draw a picture of the sentence and show is to
> their member before leaving the room (with their picture).

This part is not fair because you've changed something that started as a
sentence into something that is now pictorial. The original "message"
was verbal in both cases, so what you're testing here is if verbal
messages can be accurately transferred to a pictorial (non-verbal)
representation.

Some verbal messages just can't be drawn with total fidelity to the
original words (and vice versa). For example, I can say "There are
no birds on that tree because I spray it every day with anti-bird cream."
How do I draw that? An empty tree? An empty tree could mean anything.
How do I indicate the presence of the anti-bird cream in just pictures?
And how do I put in the idea of "every day" (as opposed to, say, "every
other day") into a picture without using words to show the date, etc?
But the written form is easy.

And, to provide the "vice versa" part, write the verbal message that would
describe the meme(s) for the "art deco" style.
Or how about if your two groups started with the message of "an isoceles
triangle coloured a particular shade of blue."
Each group is given a sheet of paper and a wide selection of coloured
pencils. The words-only people would probably struggle to pass that
message on accurately with just words, but the pictures-only people could
probably copy the shape and select the right shade of blue much more
accurately for every generation.

--
johnF
"It's not the first time, nor will it be the last, that I've missed the
point of a post!"
-- Robin Bignall, AUE, 24 January 2004

John Flynn

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 2:03:19 PM11/29/04
to
mWarrior wrote:

> Yes that is exactly what we are testing. If a meme can or cannot be
> represented in a 'pictorial' form. Ideally the message in the sentence
> would remain unchanged and all that would change is it's infromation
> representation. The purpose of the experiment is to determine if a
> meme and it's information are one and the same. If we can determine
> that it is so then JohnB's theory can be concluded.

But that's ignoring non-verbal cultural items. Dances, music, fashions,
styles and genres in art. Sure, they can be translated into some kind of
verbal representation, but do they exist in the Real World as verbal
expressions? I don't think so. I'm listening to some music right now,
and there isn't a trace of "verbal"-ness to it. I can hum the tune
and pass it on to someone else (and it can compete memetically with other
tunes to win out and be the one that gets passed on further), but the
whole process has not used words.

If you carry out your experiment and it meets your expectations, then
all you've shown is that *some* memes are verbal. It hasn't tried to
show that there are memes that are *not* verbal. In other words, you've
started out with a bunch of memes you know are verbal and tested to see
if they are verbal.

mWarrior

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 1:37:05 PM11/29/04
to

"John Flynn" <joh...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95B0B6B1...@130.133.1.4...

> mWarrior wrote:
>
> > I have been thinking about your experiment and I thought of another
> > one that could be carried out to prove your theory....
> >
> >
> > 1. Two groups of people(Group A and B) are assembled and one member of
> > each is place in seperate rooms.
> >
> > 2. A sentence is provided to both members of the two groups. The same
> > sentence(perferably a catchy one like a joke or a slogan).
> >
> > 3. Next another member of each group is sent into their respective
> > rooms.
> >
> > 4. Group A's task is to say the sentence to their group member and
> > then leave the room.
> > Group B's task is to draw a picture of the sentence and show is to
> > their member before leaving the room (with their picture).
>
> This part is not fair because you've changed something that started as a
> sentence into something that is now pictorial. The original "message"
> was verbal in both cases, so what you're testing here is if verbal
> messages can be accurately transferred to a pictorial (non-verbal)
> representation.

Yes that is exactly what we are testing. If a meme can or cannot be


represented in a 'pictorial' form. Ideally the message in the sentence would
remain unchanged and all that would change is it's infromation
representation. The purpose of the experiment is to determine if a meme and
it's information are one and the same. If we can determine that it is so
then JohnB's theory can be concluded.

-MW


mWarrior

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 12:27:58 PM11/29/04
to

"John Bailo" <jab...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Nlwqd.6158$NU3....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> As you know, my pet theory is that a writen English sentence is a direct
> representation of a meme. Let us remember, that text and print, in
> widespread use, is a /technology/ -- as McLuhan tells us. The beauty
> of this technology is that it is a direct representation of what a meme
> is in the mind, and hence why text is the most abundant carrier for the
> meme.
>

I have been thinking about your experiment and I thought of another one that


could be carried out to prove your theory....


1. Two groups of people(Group A and B) are assembled and one member of each
is place in seperate rooms.

2. A sentence is provided to both members of the two groups. The same
sentence(perferably a catchy one like a joke or a slogan).

3. Next another member of each group is sent into their respective rooms.

4. Group A's task is to say the sentence to their group member and then
leave the room.
Group B's task is to draw a picture of the sentence and show is to their
member before leaving the room (with their picture).

5. Step 4 is repeated with Group A saying the sentence outright to their
group member and Group B showing their picture that they drew after be shown
the picture of the previous group member. This is done until all members of
the each group have gone in.

6. The last member of each group is asked to write out what they think the
original sentence was. Then the copying fidelity can be easily determined.
By comparing the original meme(sentence) with the end memes.

If what Bailo and I say are correct Group A's sentence will be similar to
the original sentence. More importantly groups b's sentence will not
resemble the original in any way (apart from a few words like 'it' and
'the').

If memes are more then langauge constructs and are capable of transmission
through any cultural medium. Then Group B's sentence should be as similar to
the original as group A's was.

Nick Argall

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 8:03:51 PM11/29/04
to

"John Bailo" <jab...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Nlwqd.6158$NU3....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> As you know, my pet theory is that a writen English sentence is a direct
> representation of a meme.

> I have been challenged to provide some experiments to test this theory.


>
> Here is one...others will follow:
>
> Experiment One:
>
> Create a nonsense sentence.
>
> Check the digital copying trueness over multiple copies.
>
> So, take a sentence, using proper english syntax, but with no meaning.
>
> "The cat made lemonade."
>
> Check its copying veracity.
>
> Then check with a sentence that is "possible".
>
> "The cat played with the ball."
>
> See if there are any variations in the copying between the two.
>
> Other experiments to follow...

The experiment does not adequately test the hypothesis. The documentation
lacks rigour.

Let us define 'meme' as "An atomic unit of cultural transmission that is not
a gene, not inherently linked to any particular physical phenomenon, and is
a replicator." (Alternatively, you can define meme in some rigorous
fashion.)

Experiments cannot prove a hypothesis, but they can test it.

The experiment above tests whether sentences are replicators, but it does
not test if the sentence is an atomic unit of cultural transmission. By the
standard above, an amoeba is a gene, since it can copy itself and influences
its chance of being copied. Not all replicators are atomic units.

Nick


mWarrior

unread,
Nov 29, 2004, 10:16:41 PM11/29/04
to

"John Flynn" <joh...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95B0C279...@130.133.1.4...

> mWarrior wrote:
>
> > Yes that is exactly what we are testing. If a meme can or cannot be
> > represented in a 'pictorial' form. Ideally the message in the sentence
> > would remain unchanged and all that would change is it's infromation
> > representation. The purpose of the experiment is to determine if a
> > meme and it's information are one and the same. If we can determine
> > that it is so then JohnB's theory can be concluded.
>
> But that's ignoring non-verbal cultural items. Dances, music, fashions,
> styles and genres in art. Sure, they can be translated into some kind of
> verbal representation, but do they exist in the Real World as verbal
> expressions? I don't think so. I'm listening to some music right now,
> and there isn't a trace of "verbal"-ness to it. I can hum the tune
> and pass it on to someone else (and it can compete memetically with other
> tunes to win out and be the one that gets passed on further), but the
> whole process has not used words.

Catchy tunes are an anomaly like prions. Can you do that with other
non-verbal cultural items?

>
> If you carry out your experiment and it meets your expectations, then
> all you've shown is that *some* memes are verbal. It hasn't tried to
> show that there are memes that are *not* verbal. In other words, you've
> started out with a bunch of memes you know are verbal and tested to see
> if they are verbal.
>

Maybe I missed the point of the original experiment. What was the original
challenge? I though it was to prove that langauge is the nuts and bolts of a
meme. How else can this be tested with attempting to remove langauge from
the meme?

-MW


mWarrior

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 12:26:18 PM11/30/04
to

"John Flynn" <joh...@lineone.net> wrote in message:
> Yes.
>
> Let's imagine that I'm a graphic designer. I could see someone else's
> 'style' and incorporate it into my own work, either subtly (in which only
> a part of that style's memes are being copied and transmitted) or as a
> whole pastiche. No words would be used when someone looked at the
original
> and my work and realized that the styles were similar. It would just be
> there, right in front of their eyes, silently screaming out its
similarity.
>
> Or how about the yellow smiley face that, in the late 80s, was associated
> with the acid/house scene (at least here in the UK, I can't speak for
> North American culture). It's a very simple piece of visual culture
> that has lots of significance (obviously drawing on its earlier forms
> and incarnations to help it along), and yet when copying one no one
> would have to resort to words. In fact, using words alone is a poor
> substitute (e.g. "It's a yellow circle optionally with a black border,
> etc ,etc") compared to someone being shown the pictorial representation --
> one look at it and you've got the image (and whatever associations it
has).
>

The yellow smiley face is a good example but I have one even better...

When I was a kid I went to a craft fair with my parents as they like to do
often. In this craft fair was a workshop for kids on making ceramic
sculptures. The sculptor teaching the class knew that we wouldn't have much
skill in sculpting so he got us each make a little ceramic duck that looked
good but was produced very easily with no skill. The steps required to
create the duck are simple and few in numbers. In my youth I was amazed at
the near-perfect looking duck that transformed before my eyes as the
sculptor lead us through the steps.
I took my duck home with great pride and strangely enough the next week
in school we were using plastercine in art class. I quickly whipped up
another duck and stood there gleaming at my creation. The rest of the kids
in my class all took notice at my duck and were amazed. They asked me how I
made such a good duck and I was quite pleased to show them. The duck proved
to be an exceptional good meme because in spread through the art class and
eventually to the rest of the school. Ducks everywhere! On the bus, in the
washroom, everywhere. This was all in the one day. It's was my first
introduction to the power of memetic even though I didn't realize it then.
Why was the Duck such a good meme?
The duck was a good meme not becuase of the product but because of the
easy instruction to make it. The duck was the phenotype and wasn't a
replicator(remember those?), however the instructions are a replicator and
can be transmitted through langauge. Even if the langauge is just a simiple
set of idealized tasks. Memes needs a language to replicate. The smiley face
is the same way. It's the steps to create the smiley face that consistute
the meme not the smiley face itself. If I had not told those kids how to
make that duck, It never would have spread. In somethings you can infer the
steps(like your triangle), but it's still the steps that are being
replicated. Think of it as the difference between lamarckian and
Wittigenstien.

-MW


Andy Roberts

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 11:57:52 AM11/30/04
to
Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:26:18 GMT, "mWarrior" <MemeW...@meme.mem>
wrote in alt.memetics :

The duck is a great example, but I don't think it's like the smiley
face at all.

The instructions for carving the duck have been identified as the
meme, with talking and showing beings the means of replication and
the duck itself is merely some kind of end product that incentivises
people to want to learn how to carve it.

I don't think it's valid to conclude from this that "Memes need a


language to replicate. The smiley face is the same"

The smiley face is so simple it doesn't need any instructions, no
decription, no language. It just appears on some posters or album
covers, people see it, recognise it as a symbol for something or other
and start including it in their own artwork when they want to express
the same feeling. A great example of a meme reproducing without
language, I believe.

mWarrior

unread,
Nov 30, 2004, 7:45:48 PM11/30/04
to

"Andy Roberts" <andy.r...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message:

> The duck is a great example, but I don't think it's like the smiley
> face at all.
>
> The instructions for carving the duck have been identified as the
> meme, with talking and showing beings the means of replication and
> the duck itself is merely some kind of end product that incentivises
> people to want to learn how to carve it.
>
> I don't think it's valid to conclude from this that "Memes need a
> language to replicate. The smiley face is the same"
>
> The smiley face is so simple it doesn't need any instructions, no
> decription, no language. It just appears on some posters or album
> covers, people see it, recognise it as a symbol for something or other
> and start including it in their own artwork when they want to express
> the same feeling. A great example of a meme reproducing without
> language, I believe.
>

I will admit I use the term langauge very loosely. Most people think of
language as a method of communication but I belive that this definition is
antiquated with the advent of programming languages. Programming languages
take on a more basic role of language in that they instruct a computer to
perform what dawkins calls 'idealized tasks'. Verbal languages like english
perform a similar function but we don't notice it from our emic prespective.
The instruct our senses to perform certain tasks which allow us to
communicate. The 'language' required to create a smiley face isn't
nessecerily a verbal language but is still a set of idealized task with have
a underlying programming language to govern it's creation. This programming
language is the meme. Our perspective hides it from us the same way we
don't see the programming language at work when we run a computer program,
it still exists though.


John Bailo

unread,
Dec 3, 2004, 12:44:13 AM12/3/04
to
mWarrior wrote:

> Maybe I missed the point of the original experiment. What was the original
> challenge? I though it was to prove that langauge is the nuts and bolts of a
> meme. How else can this be tested with attempting to remove langauge from
> the meme?

"We must find out what words are and how they function.
They become images when written down,
but images of words repeated in the mind
and not of the image of the thing itself."
- W.S. Burroughs

http://www.hyperreal.org/wsb/


jabailo.vcf
0 new messages