X-Message-Number: 28409 From: "egg plant" <> Subject: Re: Genes and Memes Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 04:35:20 +0000 "Anthony ." <> >Natural selection effects the organism on 3 levels species, individual, and >genetic. Stephan Jay Gould thought that the unit Natural Selection worked on was the individual, Dawkins thought it was the gene; I think Dawkins was much closer to the truth. And neither thought it was the species. >How does natural selection work in this way on ideas? Please explain. Some ideas are able to reproduce rapidly and some do not. Sound like survival of the fittest to me. >Do ideas ultimately reduce to memes? Ideas are memes. Dawkins's idea was that from biological evolution's point of view the entire point of organisms like me and you is to carry genes into the next generation. In the same way the most successful memes are the ones most infectious to other minds. Usually the most successful genes or memes are also beneficial to body or mind carrying them, but it was Dawkins's genius to point out this is not always true. >Memes are supposed to infect us like a virus. But viruses are nothing like >ideas. Read about "ideas" in an >encyclopedia, then about "viruses". The encyclopedia tells us they must be very different because one begins with a v and the other with a i . It says so right in the book. >you are again expressing the tired philosophy of dualism. I think the essence of both genes and ideas are made of the same stuff, information, you think they are two completely different things. And I'm the one who believes in dualism?! >A word on ideas - people are not rational. By that you mean sometimes people have ideas that are not in their best interests, but that is exactly what you'd expect to find if the reproductive success of an ideas was not solely related to the well being of the mind that thought it. No matter how suicidal an idea (meme) is if it can infect other minds faster than it kills them then it will increase in the meme pool. The same is true of viruses, biological and computer. >Does this sound like an animal that freely wills itself >according to >careful rationality? I have no idea what freely wills means. >When the Catholic Chruch slaughtered the free-thinking >Gnostics and later >the Cathars, was that because their >meme was superior? Yes, the fact that you even have to ask such a question tells me you don't understand the meme concept. In that environment the meme to kill all non Catholics was able to reproduce faster than the meme not to kill people of a different religion. >Now that humans have brought about the current >mass-extinction - one which >rivals the previous 5 >mass-extinctions in size and scope It's silly remarks like that that have brought the entire environmental movement into disrepute. The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction killed about 60% of all species on the planet LITERALLY overnight, and the Permian extinction 251 million years ago was even bigger. >Currently the rate is 3 animal, insect or plant species an hour. Well now that is a Jim Dandy statistic, it's very impressive, or it would be if it was true. I have 3 question, these are not rhetorical, I would like answers. 1) What tree hugging group dreamed up that figure? 2) What scientific methodology did the use to determine it? 3) What 3 species went extinct between 2 and 3 PM this afternoon? And by the way, even if that wild figure was correct at that rate it would take about 1200 years to do what the Cretaceous extinction did in one hour. >I suggest that this conversation be moved to the >semi-associated threaded >forum "The Cold Filter". I've set >up the thread here: http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1157654847/Memes+and+Nenes Your suggestion to stop now would have had one hell of a lot more credibility if you hadn't made it at the end of a long post preaching your views. Everybody wants the last word but you must earn it. Respond to this post there not on Cryonet and I'll know you're serious. John K Clark Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28409