On adapting the Lamarckian theory of evolution to the adaptation and propagation of ideas
Although the Lamarckian theory came first, the more famous theory of evolution is Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory* assumes the following:
1. Certain traits are only changed by random mutations. *Darwin himself did not suggest how variation arises, but he did establish that variations in traits occur entirely by chance. Mutation is well ahead of his time.*
2. These traits are passed down to the offspring.
3. There are more offspring than the environment can support.
4. Only the offspring more suited to survive and propagate their traits would have their traits carried by their offspring. The rest would not be able to propagate their traits.
5. Eventually, only the traits that are helpful to the survival and propagation of the species would be passed on.
Darwin's theory only differs from Lamarck's theory in its first point. While Darwin suggests random uncontrolled mutations, Lamarck's theory states that the hereditary traits are modifed by use and disuse, i.e., more utilised organs or systems becomes larger and develops complexity, while less utilised ones would shrink, deform, and eventually disappear. For example, he suggested that giraffes have long necks because generations of giraffes have been stretching their necks to reach higher leaves. While this theory is conceptually valid (and in some aspects more attractive than Darwin's theory), experimental results do not agree with it. Being a scientific theory, this signifies that Lamarck's theory is to be cast aside, in favour of Darwin's theory, which experimental results agree with.
However, Lamarck's theory is only inaccurate for the origin and evolution of species; its main concepts can be "recycled" and adapted to describe other systems. There has been a great deal of work done on adapting Darwin's theory of evolution to the adaptation and propagation of ideas, a more established one being the "meme" theory by Richard Dawkins, as expressed in his book "The Selfish Gene(1976)".
In his "meme" theory, a "meme" is a replicator of cultural information that one mind transmits (verbally or by demonstration) to another mind.(<-taken from wikipedia) A meme can be a skill, idea, belief or theory. He suggested that memes propagate in ways analagous to genes. From here on, I shall use the word "meme" instead of "idea", since the former is more specific.
In adapting a theory that is meant to describe a particular system to describe another system, the fundamental assumptions, or at least their respective analogues, must still remain reasonable. In the following paragraph, we shall examine Darwin's fundamental assumptions in the context of the adaptation and propagation of memes. The way that I adapt his theory to a different context is contestable, but I shall attempt to retain the original meaning.
1. Memes are only changed by random mutations.
2. Memes are passed on from one mind to another.
3. There are more memes than minds can hold.
4. Only the memes more suited to stay in the mind and be successfully propagated will reach another mind. The rest would be lost.
5. Eventually, there would only be memes that are well suited to be retained in the mind and be propagated.
Assumption 2 cannot be challenged, since it is part of the definition of a "meme". Assumption 3 seems reasonable; most people don't remember everything we see or hear, thus it would be inevitable that some memes are lost as they are forgotten by the individual. Assumption 4 is an implication of assumption 3, and assumption 5 is an implication of assumptions 2, 3 and 4. Thus, assumptions 2, 3, 4 and 5 are still reasonable even when they are adapted to the context of memes.
Assumption 1 is problematic. In fact, it was already problematic before it was adapted to the context of memes. In the context of species, Darwin did not have any evidence or arguments to back this assumption up. This assumption was only shown to be valid after the mechanisms for replication of DNA and RNA were established. In the context of memes, however, the mechanisms for how memes change in the mind are not well established. Thus, assumption 1 is not neccessarily valid. In the light of this, we can explore other theories of evolution to attempt to describe memes, and perhaps find one superior to the adapted version of Darwin's theory.
Hence we turn to Lamarck's theory of evolution, the next most famous theory of evolution after divine intervention. Assumptions 2, 3, 4 and 5 remain intact; assumption 1 is different. In the context of species, variation arises from use and disuse; in the context of memes, I would interpret it in a way to mean that:
Within the mind of an individual, parts of the meme that are more often used would be more emphasized; parts of the meme that are less often used would be neglected and eventually forgotten.
Again, this interpretation is contestable.
An implication of this assumption would be that even within the mind, memes would progressively "mutate" in such a way that they become a form more often used by the mind. Like assumption 1 of Darwin's theory, this assumption is also not backed up by any evidence. However, by changing this assumption in such a way that it becomes more similar to Lamarck's theory, this theory would be capable of producing testable predictions without prior knowledge of what causes the memes to change in a person's mind. In this aspect, it would be easier to falsify this model than the model based on Darwin's theory. If it is not falsified, then it would prove to be a more useful theory than that modified from Darwin's theory, because it can successfully predict more phenomena, i.e, it would enable us to find out more specifically how memes would adapt and propagate.
One experiment that can be done to check this assumption:
3 groups of volunteers in groups A, B and C listen to a long paragraph describing a scene.
After listening to the scene, group A volunteers are singled out and asked a certain number of questions about certain parts of the scene, but the experimentors who ask the questions would not tell them if the answers are correct.
Group B volunteers are singled out and asked the same number of questions about other parts of the scene that are not asked to group A volunteers. Similarly, they are not told if their answers are correct or not.
Group C volunteers are singled out and asked the same number of questions about the entire scene. Likewise, they are not told if their answers are correct or not.
Three days later, all the volunteers are asked to write down a paragraph about the scene. Group A, B and C are then assigned to different colours, and only one experimentor would know which group corresponds to which colour. The volunteers then write down the colour and hand in their paper. (This serves to eliminate confirmation bias)
The papers are then sorted by their colour, and the researchers check to see if there are indeed two groups that writes more about different parts, and one group that does not emphasize any part in particular. If the group that writes more about certain parts are indeed the group that has been asked questions about that part, then we can suggest that the adapted Lamarck's model might be more useful in this aspect. This is because the adapted Darwin's model would not predict thus.
However, the above experiment assumes the following:
1. Asking questions about certain parts of the scene prompts the volunteers to "use" those parts of the meme more often.
2. The volunteers do not "use" the paragraph scene meme at all when they are not asked questions.
Assumption 1 might be valid. However, assumption 2 is a problem. For example, if a part of the scene contains of a joke that the volunteer finds funny, he might try harder to remember it so that he can tell it to someone else. In that case, the volunteer would be using this particular part of the scene meme when he is not being asked questions. Thus, this experiment would not be able to adequately test if this theory is an accurate model.
If this model is shown to be able to adequately predict phenomena regarding the adaptation and propagation of ideas, then we can better appreciate that all the information that has been passed to us are essentially memes that are useful in the context of the people who transmitted it to us. Even though there may be certain pieces of information somewhere in the world that might be useful to a particular person, if that piece of information is not useful to anyone other than those two people, this information might never be transmitted to the person who can use it. Even if a certain piece of information is useful to many people, it may not be useful to some people, and thus the high likelyhood of this piece of information and not another piece of information that could be more useful to those people can be undesirable. This is because information that is useful to most people in the society are more likely to be transmitted than information that is only useful to some people.
An implication of the possible success of this model in describing phenomema regarding the transmission of information would be that most of the information that we receive are likely to be useful to us as well, because being in the same society would suggest that the context of the information would be similar, and hence that piece of information would still be applicable. For example, the fact that calculus is taught in schools indicates that calculus is useful to the people who have learnt it, and since the teachers and the students live in the same society, it is likely that the students would find the information useful as well.
However, the situation where both the teacher and student would find the information useful may be just a coincidence. For example, Newton-Ralphson approximation may be more useful to a student 5 years ago, because he would not have a graphic calculator with him in the examination hall to find the root of a complicated function. Being useful to the student five years ago who is now a teacher, it is likely that he would teach this technique to his students. Now, students are allowed to use the graphic calculator during examinations, so this information is no longer so useful to the students, so it is likely that the students would forget this part of calculus. Hence, the amount of effort spent on teaching the newer students Newton-Ralphson approximation may be better spent on teaching the students something else that is more useful to the students. This would mean that curriculum planning is essential, because if allowed to follow the natural cause of action, students would not be spending their learning time in an efficient manner, as they would be likely to learn things that are not applicable to them.
Thus, it is likely that most of the information that we receive and retain are not those that are closest to the "objective truth", but those that are most useful to us, those that are more easily transmitted, or those that are most useful to the people who transmitted that information to us. If the model of adaptation and propagation of ideas based on the Lamarckian theory is accurate, we should be skeptical of the information we receive, because information that reach us would tend to be useful rather than truthful.
We must also be open to the suggestion that the model adapted from the Lamarckian theory of evolution is not an accurate description of the adaptation and propagation of ideas. This could arise due to the following:
1. Transmission of information follow a much less strict selection criteria than the transmission of genetic information. Thus, while useless memetic information is likely to be much more widespread than useless genetic information.
2. Change in genetic information occurs much more slowly than change in memetic information. Thus, genetic
3. Similar to the problem encountered in Lamarck's theory of evolution on species, the word "useful" is not properly defined, and is open to interpretation.
4. Speciation occurs in nature in the case of species, such that certain genetic information are not able be freely hybridised with others. For example, the pollen grains of one specie of plant cannot fertilise the ovules in the flower of another plant, and this results in the genetic information of different species of plants not being able to hybridise with each other. No obvious analogy applies in memetics.
5. Sexual reproduction occurs in nature where genetic information can only be transmitted after being hybridised with the genetic information of another member of the some species. No obvious analogy applies in memetics as well.
In such a case, we would temporarily fall back on the model based on Darwin's theory of evolution, or come up with another one that would be more accurate. We would also have learnt that using analogy to find explanation for phenomena is not as simple as it seems on the surface. There are a lot of hidden assumptions in the mechanism behind the system that need to be justified in order for the application of the mechanism of one system to another system to be logically valid and sound.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Monday, August 28, 2006
Morality, power, persuasion
People want things, and they take action to obtain them. However, in the process of obtaining this item, a person may gain or loss something else. For example, in obtaining a shop item, a person may steal or buy it. However, he may lose something else should he steal it.
In the process of obtaining an item, another person may stand to gain or lose. When another person stands to lose, he would guard against this loss. Similarly, when another person stands to gain, he would attempt to obtain this potential gain. Therefore, in the process of a person attempting to obtain something, other people may stand to gain or lose. This may help or hinder this process.
When a person can obtain something easily, there is a high tendency of him acquiring it. The harder it is to obtain something, the lower the tendency of him acquiring it. The difficulty factor is determined by the person's ability to use his environment to achieve his desired ends, and also the interaction between the ends and environment.
Consider a particle at point A. When there is lower potential on point B than point A, there would be a force acting on the particle to move from A to B. However, when there is a high potential region between A and B, the particle would not move from A to B.
Now suppose the particle has slightly more kinetic energy than the change in potential energy from point A to the potential spike, the particle would then move from point A to point B. Let us raise the potential spike higher now. The particle would oscillate between states of higher kinetic energy and states of higher potential energy, but it cannot reach point B.
We open the particle to another pathway: one which has a lower potential spike, but after crossing the spike, it reaches point C, which has higher potential than point B, but lower potential than A. In this case, the particle would not move to B. It would, instead, oscillate between point A and C, even though the energy change in moving from A to B is greater.
A person wants many things. When someone else offers him something he wants, he is likely to accept the offer. In accepting the offer, he may benefit himself and the person who initiated the offer. In this case, both people can acquire what they want more easily than if they go for it alone. Thus, there is a high tendency for both of them to obtain what they want.
However, when someone else offers him something he does not want, he is unlikely to accept the offer. That someone else would need to force him to take the offer, and this is generally more difficult to achieve than a case of mutual agreement. Thus, there is a low tendency for this transaction to occur.
If a person has the ability take something by force and hold on to it, he would attain it if that is only what he wants. However, a person wants many things. Taking something by force may make it more difficult for him to attain something else in the future. Thus, by taking advantage of the environment, he can make attaining that object easier, which would lead to a higher tendency of him acquiring it. (Think enzymes)
However, in order to take advantage of the environment, one would need to learn how to interact with the environment in such a way that what he wants can be acquired. One can learn many things about the environment by assuming that what applies in the past applies in the future as well. If this assumption is a reasonable one, by studying the environment, one can learn to interact with the environment in such a way that he maximises his gains.
An important part of the environment is the social environment. An interesting thing about social environment is that while interactions with inanimate parts of nature is mostly a means to another end, social interaction is occasionally an end in itself. Playing around with the social environment can be quite tricky as there can be side effects.
If one can utilise the environment well to help him achieve his ends, there is a high tendency for him to succeed in attaining what he wants. By understanding what other people want, he can persuade them to work for him. Persuasion is a way to interact with the social environment to achieve one's goals. By understanding other people's morals and principles, it would more likely be successful.
If all else fails, sheer power works too.
People want things, and they take action to obtain them. However, in the process of obtaining this item, a person may gain or loss something else. For example, in obtaining a shop item, a person may steal or buy it. However, he may lose something else should he steal it.
In the process of obtaining an item, another person may stand to gain or lose. When another person stands to lose, he would guard against this loss. Similarly, when another person stands to gain, he would attempt to obtain this potential gain. Therefore, in the process of a person attempting to obtain something, other people may stand to gain or lose. This may help or hinder this process.
When a person can obtain something easily, there is a high tendency of him acquiring it. The harder it is to obtain something, the lower the tendency of him acquiring it. The difficulty factor is determined by the person's ability to use his environment to achieve his desired ends, and also the interaction between the ends and environment.
Consider a particle at point A. When there is lower potential on point B than point A, there would be a force acting on the particle to move from A to B. However, when there is a high potential region between A and B, the particle would not move from A to B.
Now suppose the particle has slightly more kinetic energy than the change in potential energy from point A to the potential spike, the particle would then move from point A to point B. Let us raise the potential spike higher now. The particle would oscillate between states of higher kinetic energy and states of higher potential energy, but it cannot reach point B.
We open the particle to another pathway: one which has a lower potential spike, but after crossing the spike, it reaches point C, which has higher potential than point B, but lower potential than A. In this case, the particle would not move to B. It would, instead, oscillate between point A and C, even though the energy change in moving from A to B is greater.
A person wants many things. When someone else offers him something he wants, he is likely to accept the offer. In accepting the offer, he may benefit himself and the person who initiated the offer. In this case, both people can acquire what they want more easily than if they go for it alone. Thus, there is a high tendency for both of them to obtain what they want.
However, when someone else offers him something he does not want, he is unlikely to accept the offer. That someone else would need to force him to take the offer, and this is generally more difficult to achieve than a case of mutual agreement. Thus, there is a low tendency for this transaction to occur.
If a person has the ability take something by force and hold on to it, he would attain it if that is only what he wants. However, a person wants many things. Taking something by force may make it more difficult for him to attain something else in the future. Thus, by taking advantage of the environment, he can make attaining that object easier, which would lead to a higher tendency of him acquiring it. (Think enzymes)
However, in order to take advantage of the environment, one would need to learn how to interact with the environment in such a way that what he wants can be acquired. One can learn many things about the environment by assuming that what applies in the past applies in the future as well. If this assumption is a reasonable one, by studying the environment, one can learn to interact with the environment in such a way that he maximises his gains.
An important part of the environment is the social environment. An interesting thing about social environment is that while interactions with inanimate parts of nature is mostly a means to another end, social interaction is occasionally an end in itself. Playing around with the social environment can be quite tricky as there can be side effects.
If one can utilise the environment well to help him achieve his ends, there is a high tendency for him to succeed in attaining what he wants. By understanding what other people want, he can persuade them to work for him. Persuasion is a way to interact with the social environment to achieve one's goals. By understanding other people's morals and principles, it would more likely be successful.
If all else fails, sheer power works too.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Lately I read some other people's blogs, and it seems that there are many things bothering them. I realise how lucky I am to be free of so many troubles! Stress-free life ftw!
As mentioned before, many song lyrics are excellent poems to describe feelings, and here goes.
Simple Gifts:
'Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free,
'Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be,
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,
'Twill be in the valley of love and delight.
When true simplicity is gain'd,
To bow and to bend we shan't be asham'd,
To turn, turn will be our delight,
Till by turning, turning we come round right.
As mentioned before, many song lyrics are excellent poems to describe feelings, and here goes.
Simple Gifts:
'Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free,
'Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be,
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,
'Twill be in the valley of love and delight.
When true simplicity is gain'd,
To bow and to bend we shan't be asham'd,
To turn, turn will be our delight,
Till by turning, turning we come round right.
Friday, August 18, 2006
omg chem fun.
On wednesday, there was a demonstration showing the reaction between KMnO4 and glycerine. They react only with each other, and very strongly exothermic, without even a need for any additional heating or oxygen. Basically, you see a bright lilac flame with lots of smoke (though not quite as much as KNO3/sugar reaction), and the more reactants you have, the more smoke and flame you have.
The best part is, they left a huge bottle of KMnO4 and glycine out in the charge of people crazier than me. Of course, knowing that they were crazy, those crazy people were occasionally watched by a teacher. But when the teacher was looking away, the fun began. One of the crazy people just finished drinking a bottle of coke, and I suggested mixing the stuff in the bottle. And so we did. Oh, the smoke! Oh, the fumes! It was pretty spectacular.
Then I suggested reacting the stuff in the bottle with the cap on. However, you can't react this stuff in the school, because we knew full well it would explode, and we have not known how loud it would be. Considering that the school didn't even allow smoke bombs (which aren't even bombs at all), what more something that explodes and spews smoke and fire? So we took some KMnO4 and a bottle containing some glycerine out of RJ and found a nice spot to deploy it: a butress root.
Now what's so good about a butress root, you say? Well, only rather large trees have butress roots, and between butress roots are huge cavities which point directly outwards. This means that you can plant the bottle in the cavity and stand behind the tree; you'll be safe. If the tree collapses, nothing you could have done would make this experiment safe enough to not kill you, so it is not much of a concern anyway.
And so here we have a pile of KMnO4 and a bottle of glycerine and a bottle cap. Problem: How do you put the KMnO4 into the bottle and cap up the bottle tightly without it exploding in your face? So one crazy guy thought of stuffing the KMnO4 into the bottle cap and capping up the bottle with at bottle cap. Not a bad idea, but we didn't realise that the bottle cap had a speck of glycerine in it. Oh the fun! Oh the joy! The bottle cap was reduced (or rather, oxidized) to nothingness in no time.
Now we have a bottle with glycerine and no bottle cap and no KMnO4. The question still remains, how do you cap up the bottle without it blowing up in your face?
A certain guy had a brilliant idea. He took an empty tissue packet (made of plastic) and he koped KMnO4 with it and with a bunch of crazy people (like me), he ran out of the school. to the butress root. Then, we stuffed the entire plastic packet into the bottle. Now, recall that plastic is waterproof, so the KMnO4 sat comfortably in the plastic packet, and the glycerine out of it. Perfect. We had ample time to screw on the bottle cap. After screwing on the bottle cap, all that remained was shaking the bottle.
And so we shook it, and dropped it on the ground. No response. Weird. So we kicked it. White fumes emerged in the bottle. In a split second, the bottle exploded with the loudness of a balloon (quite disappointing) and flew across the road with a trail of smoke. It almost hit a passing car, but the car couldn't avoid being caught in the smoke trail. Nothing much happened to it. The exploded bottle hit the middle of the road and stopped, with a flame that lasted uncannily long. A plastic bottle shouldn't burn for 5 minutes. Later, upon investigation, we found out that it was the glycerine that was burning.
Chemicals can be fun.
On wednesday, there was a demonstration showing the reaction between KMnO4 and glycerine. They react only with each other, and very strongly exothermic, without even a need for any additional heating or oxygen. Basically, you see a bright lilac flame with lots of smoke (though not quite as much as KNO3/sugar reaction), and the more reactants you have, the more smoke and flame you have.
The best part is, they left a huge bottle of KMnO4 and glycine out in the charge of people crazier than me. Of course, knowing that they were crazy, those crazy people were occasionally watched by a teacher. But when the teacher was looking away, the fun began. One of the crazy people just finished drinking a bottle of coke, and I suggested mixing the stuff in the bottle. And so we did. Oh, the smoke! Oh, the fumes! It was pretty spectacular.
Then I suggested reacting the stuff in the bottle with the cap on. However, you can't react this stuff in the school, because we knew full well it would explode, and we have not known how loud it would be. Considering that the school didn't even allow smoke bombs (which aren't even bombs at all), what more something that explodes and spews smoke and fire? So we took some KMnO4 and a bottle containing some glycerine out of RJ and found a nice spot to deploy it: a butress root.
Now what's so good about a butress root, you say? Well, only rather large trees have butress roots, and between butress roots are huge cavities which point directly outwards. This means that you can plant the bottle in the cavity and stand behind the tree; you'll be safe. If the tree collapses, nothing you could have done would make this experiment safe enough to not kill you, so it is not much of a concern anyway.
And so here we have a pile of KMnO4 and a bottle of glycerine and a bottle cap. Problem: How do you put the KMnO4 into the bottle and cap up the bottle tightly without it exploding in your face? So one crazy guy thought of stuffing the KMnO4 into the bottle cap and capping up the bottle with at bottle cap. Not a bad idea, but we didn't realise that the bottle cap had a speck of glycerine in it. Oh the fun! Oh the joy! The bottle cap was reduced (or rather, oxidized) to nothingness in no time.
Now we have a bottle with glycerine and no bottle cap and no KMnO4. The question still remains, how do you cap up the bottle without it blowing up in your face?
A certain guy had a brilliant idea. He took an empty tissue packet (made of plastic) and he koped KMnO4 with it and with a bunch of crazy people (like me), he ran out of the school. to the butress root. Then, we stuffed the entire plastic packet into the bottle. Now, recall that plastic is waterproof, so the KMnO4 sat comfortably in the plastic packet, and the glycerine out of it. Perfect. We had ample time to screw on the bottle cap. After screwing on the bottle cap, all that remained was shaking the bottle.
And so we shook it, and dropped it on the ground. No response. Weird. So we kicked it. White fumes emerged in the bottle. In a split second, the bottle exploded with the loudness of a balloon (quite disappointing) and flew across the road with a trail of smoke. It almost hit a passing car, but the car couldn't avoid being caught in the smoke trail. Nothing much happened to it. The exploded bottle hit the middle of the road and stopped, with a flame that lasted uncannily long. A plastic bottle shouldn't burn for 5 minutes. Later, upon investigation, we found out that it was the glycerine that was burning.
Chemicals can be fun.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
What does "knowledge is power" mean from a commonsensical point of view?
A more drastic proverb would be "a pen is mightier than the sword". However, I don't think that knowledge alone confers power to someone. Just consider a leading theoretical physicist lost in the jungle. It can be easily seen that the knowledge must, first, be relevent to the person's situation.
Now let's test: "Relevent knowledge is power." True? So suppose there is a war between two nations, and a strategist knows just the right strategy to deal with either country. However, neither country is willing to employ him. Is his relevent knowledge powerful? I doubt so.
Now let's retreat further and test:"Relevent knowledge confers power when used." I think this starts to make more sense. I'm not sure if this is acceptable, but when one say something is knowledge, it must somewhat hold true for an extended period of time. Thus, when one has knowledge, one would be able predict future events in the relevent field given enough relevent information, and when he has the power to change the input, he can manipulate the input to achieve the desired output. However, if he has no power to change the input, even with extensive knowledge, he cannot change the output.
Thus, I propose that "Relevent knowledge confers additional power when one's available power allows him to use that knowledge."
A more drastic proverb would be "a pen is mightier than the sword". However, I don't think that knowledge alone confers power to someone. Just consider a leading theoretical physicist lost in the jungle. It can be easily seen that the knowledge must, first, be relevent to the person's situation.
Now let's test: "Relevent knowledge is power." True? So suppose there is a war between two nations, and a strategist knows just the right strategy to deal with either country. However, neither country is willing to employ him. Is his relevent knowledge powerful? I doubt so.
Now let's retreat further and test:"Relevent knowledge confers power when used." I think this starts to make more sense. I'm not sure if this is acceptable, but when one say something is knowledge, it must somewhat hold true for an extended period of time. Thus, when one has knowledge, one would be able predict future events in the relevent field given enough relevent information, and when he has the power to change the input, he can manipulate the input to achieve the desired output. However, if he has no power to change the input, even with extensive knowledge, he cannot change the output.
Thus, I propose that "Relevent knowledge confers additional power when one's available power allows him to use that knowledge."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)