Re: virus: replicators don't follow the same rules!
Robert Moritz (robertmoritz@earthlink.net)
Sat, 15 Aug 1998 14:43:46 -0500
Nathaniel Hall wrote:
>
> Tim Rhodes wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> How about new innovations giving birth to new corporations? The wash
> here is the background of ideas that make the development of a new one
> possible. The person starting the new corporation may quite his job with
> a corporation and use the memes he learned there to get the new
> corporation started.
> >
> > >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?
>
> Even among living things the strategy differs greatly. The niche the
> information finds itself replicating in, whether a Xerox machine or a
> womb only alters its particular way of surviving
> >
> > DNA builds structures which are able to produce copies of itself. Do you
> > believe that memes create brains? I think not.
>
> True but did DNA create the atoms of which it is composed? Of course the
> background against which memes occur is conditional but DNA has certain
> background conditions for it to exist too. Temperature for example.
> >
> > >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.
>
> The analogy has to break down somewhere of course, because
> corporations are not animals. However the similarities are what I find
> amazing and meme theory explains why!
> >
> > >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.
> >
> Memes are of course man made! You can't dismiss them off-hand like that
> any more than saying DNA is chemically made! We see progress as moving
> forward because the competitive power of the meme has not yet peaked.
> But even with "evolution" their is also a kind of faith that adoption is
> necessarily heading somewhere over time. We have all seen the drawing of
> the fishes coming out of the water then becoming apes then men with
> briefcases. Of course you are correct in that evolution does not care
> which way its going but I counter does progress care either? It could
> just as well lead to undesirable
> outcomes.
> > >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.
>
> I found a link to the very case I had in mind when I wrote this. I
> believe you will find this interesting:
> http://rubens.anu.edu.au/student.projects/rabbits/myxo.html
> >
> > > 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
>
> Of course they have to use different methods for replication. They are
> quite different creatures, so to speak. It's their similarity that
> fascinates me because they reveal universal truths for replicators in
> general!
> Nate Hall
Greetings
I figure this would be a good a time as any to jump in. All
apologies if i sound like a raving lunatic, it's late and i havent had
much sleep. getting my ideas on 'paper' has always been difficult, I
live in the bible belt(woe is me) and have met very few people to
discuss such things with. So i usually quietly ponder such things.
Now, I've always felt the gene and meme replicators follow the same
rules. The complete set of an individual's memes seem like a dynamic
genetic code composed soley of viral dna. This 'genetic code' has
escaped the trial and error limitations of natural selection and
undergoes cultural selection. Ok, here comes a big digression. Most
people i come across seem to think theres some magical quality that
comprises 'life'. When you break it down, life seems to be no more than
a bunch of inanimate components arranged in such a way as to perform a
function. From this perspective, what defines life other than
functionality? Seeing it this way, lets look at a spider. now, a
spider's web is not considered 'alive'. On a cellular level, life is
defined as being neccesary to life(kinda). I feel that the two(spider
and web) should be considered as one, with the spider as the 'prime
animator' of the web extention. A more suitable name would probably be
'filters'. So, from that perspective, a human can be viewed as a 'prime
animator' also; the animator of his home. The home consumes(water,
elec. gas), produces waste, and metabolizes. the home can be viewed as
a single cell in the superorganism. you may say'technology alive? what
a crock of s***!" This only works if you look at it as the ...well,
flesh of a superorganism. Ok, so every unit of the super
organism(human) has this abstract memetic code which serve similar
purposes...like causing 'organ rejection' and such. Anyways, its late,
and i gotta catch some zzzs. So...honest opinion, have i degenerated
into a complete lunatic?
-Robert