I find the idea that selection does not operate on chance as offensive as
you must find the idea that selection does operate on chance. I think this
primary difference will color all our interactions vis a vis memetics.
Specifically I am interested in pathological memes that seem to contradict
the egalitarian memes I hold dear. The basis for my egalitarian memes is
the tit for tat strategy for the prisoner's dilemma. That is do good ...
but don't be a sucker. Examples of really successful pathological memes
would be: astrology, the beatitudes, colonialism ....
Please note that rivers don't always branch ... there is the Colorado in
the grand canyon ... Rivers branch because at some point the bottom becomes
harder then the banks. This is the way the earth is set up and not a
mathematical necessity. You are right that Darwin's explanation of
mutation was a bit flawed ... but we've come a bit further in genetics
since then. The idea of mutations being the result of new combinations of
DNA combined with transmission errors does not seem flawed to me...it seems
to be the basis for most of biotechnology.
I'm sure there are people in the group who can more adequately defend
natural selection/Darwin/et al. better than I can.
Nate wrote:
>" I think you are applying value judgements to natural selection which I
>consider to be a fallacy. I would think of natural selection as a chaotic
>process, so that trying to imply any kind of value to its results is
>fruitless."
Brett wrote:
>There is no value to chance development. I do not buy into a selection
>process which operates on chance. I buy into a developmental model which
>says that things develop--like rivers develop, into more intricate
>patterns--not because they compete, but because it is efficient for
rivers
>to branch (Darwin had to devise a new way for things to "develop"...they
>just "mutate" he said...that's akin to spontaneous generation, saying
that
>flys develop from rotting meat through mutation...I think the theory is
>flawed). I do see a place for competition, though...in destroying those
>things which are not efficient...through the "un" natural "de" selection
of
>the theory of "destruction of the least fit" (Darwinism). I don't think
>that will or judgement has anything to do with it as it is a
>cooperative--and not a competive--system. I haven't implied "value
(which
>is arbetrary human judgment)", I have applied efficiency and
applicability
>(the scientific standards of replication and validity).
etc.
At 04:39 PM 8/13/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Words don't mean whatever YOU say.... unless YOU say so ... in which case
I
>again bow to your superior intellect.
>1. Superior is not the same as successful.
>2. Circumstantial success is tautological. Which was superior .. more
>successful ... whatever ... the Chinese empire or the Roman empire?
<Which
>is superior western civilization or eastern civilization>. Which is
>superior Bacteria or insects?
>3. I am sorry if my sarcasm - although I'd label it satire - bothered you.
> I think you are applying value judgements to natural selection which I
>consider to be a fallacy. I would think of natural selection as a chaotic
>process, so that trying to imply any kind of value to its results is
>fruitless.
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Take what you can use and let the rest go by.
KEN KESEY