RE: virus: Memetical Axioms

Tim Rhodes (
Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:16:28 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Brett Lane Robertson wrote:

> The soul-less, pagan Prof. Tim wrote:
> >Yes, our memes influence who we mate with and therefore which genes are
> >passed down. And, yes, it is not as obvious a relationship as one would
> >hope.
> Pragmatically speaking, if there is a behavior that is elicited on the level
> of "memes influence who we mate with", then the mechanism for this behavior
> would also exist at the level of "which genes are passed down" and even at
> the level of *how genes structure themselves*.

Why? Why do trends in fashion or preferred body-types have to exist at a
genetic level? This seems misguided. This is mixing up your levels,
young man. It's like saying that since I wrote this sentence that it was
somehow coded into the electrons in my fingertips since the beginning of
time--an asinine claim. Is that what you're saying, Brett? Or are you
just talking out of your crown again?

> For experimental purposes,
> our behavioral effect on genes must reside in the gene itself in the form of
> a "cause" which can be manipulated in such a way as to produce the observed
> effect; and manipulating the dependent variable would also show a
> change--not due to chance (like the "influence" on who we mate)--which can
> then be attributed to "meme" the genetic determinant similar to "meme" the
> social determinant.

What have you read about genetics, Brett?

> ... things which occur intelligently (the works of Shakespeare, for
> written by "Shakespeare"-the-intelligent-being) are more
> likely to occur due to intelligence than given a large number of monkies
> with keyboards

I'm beginning to wonder, what with so many keyboards and so many monkeys
these days.

-Prof. Tim