Genes are to Evolution, Memes are to Culture, Dicenes are to General Intelligences.

Open-ended generative processes like evolution and human culture have a thing that is replicated and propagated by the process. For evolution, these are known as genes. For culture, these are known as memes.
It became obvious to me that there isn't an equivalent for individual brains. Is there something that is equivalent to this in general intelligent systems or biological brains?
I have come up with a term that describes these. The word I've invented is 'dicene'. This word is inspired by C.S. Peirce's dicent sign or dicisign. It is the combination then of dicent and gene, and thus dicene.
But why dicene over so many other possibilities like schemes, themes, intuitions, patterns, schemas, embeddings, attention, habits, explanations, ideas, meanings, representations, concepts, analogies, and lekta?
Although all these words refer to some important aspect of thought, none of them capture why a gene or a meme are mechanisms of a generative process. What do genes and memes have in common?
Genes and memes are both codification of expressions. They replicate through a collective of interpreters. For genes, these are the host cells and for memes these are the language speakers.
Snippets of information are disseminated in genes via viruses (note: there are also other mechanisms) and in genes by an analogous viral process.
The process that I am seeking to elucidate is that viral process that should exist in the minds of general intelligence. To understand this, let us deconstruct the mechanism of a virus and a meme.
A virus is a non-living information propagation mechanism. It consists of the vessel (or container) and the code as a fragment of RNA instructions. A virus propagates itself in a host by deceptively fooling its way into its host's cells.
Once in a cell, the virus replicates itself using the host as a factory. A meme is also a two stage process, the bait and the hook. The bait is the surface expression that makes it alluring to a listener. The hook is the encouraged use of the expression if subsequence speech.
Genes and memes thus have two kinds of information. Information that encourages its assimilation and information that encourages its dissemination.
A dicent sign or dicisign as formulated by Peirce also has two pieces of information. It involves two signs, an icon and an index. Perice uses a weathervane as an example of a dicisign:
Analogous to a virus and a meme, a dicisign facilitates understanding through its icon. This icon is also an index that conveys another concept. In the case of the weathervane, it indicates the direction of the wind.
A dicene is that mechanism in the mind that encourages it adoption and also its subsequent propagation. As previously discussed, the core of cognition resides in neuroglia cells known as astrocytes.
Astrocytes are territorial and thus reflect a kind of behavior that is analogous to social behavior. The dicene is that information object that is shared by collectives of astrocytes to achieve coordinated behavior.
Complex emergent cognitive behavior is a consequence of the dicene that is shared across the astrocytes. Contain in the dicene are the imperative instructions as to how an astrocyte behaves. The collective interactions of the astrocytes leads to other rich cognitive behavior.
A good analogy of this is the vMeme concept introduced by Spiral Dynamics to explain complex social organizational behavior.
The mechanism proposed for neural networks is an unimaginably crude algorithm. It is called the Hebbian rule. "Neurons that fire together, wire together."
The Hebbian rule is also different from Deep Learning's backpropagation mechanism. This is where the synaptic weight most responsible for an error are the ones perturbed in the direction of least error. Backpropagation is a "fit to nature" algorithm.
The backpropagation algorithm has been shown to be unimaginably useful in learning complex behavior. One useful artifact of DL systems is known as embeddings. These are information objects that appear to capture hidden semantics.
Embeddings are essentially high dimensional icons, to use Peirce's semiotic classification. When you use an embedding as input to a neural network, the network acts as an interpreter of the icon and the output is its indexical relationship between input and output signs.
In a network like GPT-3 that performs sequence to sequence transformations, the intermediate layers can be considered as its embeddings. GPT-3 takes pieces of words, transforms it to an embedding and transforms that embedding to pierces of other words.
In effect, treating sequence of words as a complex information object and then generating (or indexing) to another sequence of words that represents another complex object.
What you begin to notice is that genes, memes and language models like GPT-3 all perform sequence to sequence transformations. Thus you have an in-silico analog of how genes and memes might be interpreted.
You also realize that all complex openended processes appear to use the same mechanism for distributing information. That is through sequences of digital information. This is the 'language-turn' that was first proposed by biosemiotics to understand biological complexity.
This is a divergent view from the more conventional view of treating complex systems like dynamical systems. Biology and culture are semiotic systems. The apt level of interpretation and thus understanding is at the language level.
To conclude, my hypothesis is that dicenes are a necessary requirement for anything that purports to be a general intelligence (which our brain is a instance of). Note: hypothesis pre-registered on Twitter.
@threadreaderapp unroll

More from Carlos E. Perez

It's a very different perspective when we realize that our bodies consist of an entire ecology of bacteria and viruses that are also passed to our ancestors. Mammals rear their young and as a consequence transfer the microbiome and virome to their offspring.


What does it mean to treat our individuality as ecologies? We are all ecologies existing in other ecologies. Nature is constantly performing a balancing act across multiple scales of existence.

There are bacteria and viruses that are unique to your ancestry as that of your own DNA. They have lived in symbiosis with your ancestor and will do so for your descendants.

It is an empirical fact that the microbiome in our stomach can influence not only our own moods but also our metabolism and thus our weight and health.

It is also intriguing to know that brains evolved out of stomachs and that our stomachs contain hundreds of millions of neurons. Humans can literally think with their gut.

More from Society

So, as the #MegaMillions jackpot reaches a record $1.6B and #Powerball reaches $620M, here's my advice about how to spend the money in a way that will truly set you, your children and their kids up for life.

Ready?

Create a private foundation and give it all away. 1/

Let's stipulate first that lottery winners often have a hard time. Being publicly identified makes you a target for "friends" and "family" who want your money, as well as for non-family grifters and con men. 2/

The stress can be damaging, even deadly, and Uncle Sam takes his huge cut. Plus, having a big pool of disposable income can be irresistible to people not accustomed to managing wealth.
https://t.co/fiHsuJyZwz 3/

Meanwhile, the private foundation is as close as we come to Downton Abbey and the landed aristocracy in this country. It's a largely untaxed pot of money that grows significantly over time, and those who control them tend to entrench their own privileges and those of their kin. 4

Here's how it works for a big lotto winner:

1. Win the prize.
2. Announce that you are donating it to the YOUR NAME HERE Family Foundation.
3. Receive massive plaudits in the press. You will be a folk hero for this decision.
4. Appoint only trusted friends/family to board. 5/
This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?

My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.

But what if that wasn't true?

Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.

The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!

I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?