> Nate H. writes (on the subject of DNA and memes being different):
>
> >Is it really that different? Can't a gene be thought of as information
> >encoded chemically?
>
> Yes, it can also be thought of as having intentionality and behaving
> "selfishly" as well. Both are useful at a certian level of description.
> And both are entirely useless when talking about the underlying mechanisms
> responsible.
>
> DNA is code for a series of chemical baths that wash the developing embryo,
> perturbing its development along a given path. I see no memetic equivilent
> to this process.
>
Once a person begins thinking along a given path, i.e. meglomania,
fundamentalism, etc. the path becomes self sustaining.
> >The criteria is: does the information replicate and survive.
>
> Yes. But why does that presuppose that it will use the same mechanisms
> as a biological replicator in order to do it? Does a Xerox machine and womb
> work in the same way?
>
> DNA builds structures which are able to produce copies of itself. Do you
> believe that memes create brains? I think not.
>
Does DNA create life without transcription enzymes, the organelles in the
zygote, RNA, amino acids, glucose.....?
> >I can find all kinds of similarities. Here are some examples:
> >1. The gene complex: a gene "cooperates" with other genes in an animal
> >because they all depend the survival of the same initial egg.
>
> You're anthropomorphising a little too much here to make the analogy useful.
> Break it down to what _actually_ happens in selection and you might find
> that your analogy breaks down with it.
>
> >Meme complex: In a corporation a meme "cooperates" with other memes
> >because their mutual survival depends on the corporations profitability.
> >2. Evolution is to the gene as Progress is to the meme.
>
> No. Evolution is to the gene as _evolution_ is to the meme. "Evolution" is
> the observation that natural selection favors structures that are well
> suited to their environment. "Progress" is the man-made belief that such
> adaption is necessarily heading somewhere over time. A sort of faith. The
> concept of "progess" has no place in evolutionary theory.
>
Would you agree that there has been progress from the 'nobody's going to ever
want more than 640 K of memory' meme to the 'You can't do anything without at
least 16 megs' meme?
> >3.A deadly virus mutates to a less dangerous virus because natural
> >selection favors it.
>
> Please show me a few cases of this. I know of none. A deadly virus has
> evolved to be deadly precisely _because_ natural selection favored it.
> Unless the environment radically changes, there is no need for the virus to
> adapt to be any less lethal.
>
> > An unprofitable meme mutates to a less expensive meme because the
> >marketplace favors it.
> > I could go on but I hope you get the picture here:
>
> All I get is a picture of several weak analogies trying to support another
> weak analogy.
>
> "_What if_ memes and genes employ different mechanisms for replication?"
> Just roll that question around in your brain for a while and see what it
> produces.
>
> Or are you already too dogmaticly bound to the fairly recent (only 20-some
> years old now) meme/gene analogy to allow you to entertain other
> possiblities as well?
>
> -Prof. Tim
-- Nathan Russell frussell@frontiernet.net
"I'm not a bad politician, I'm a Republican!" -Dan Quayle