X-Message-Number: 5385 From: Peter Merel <> Subject: Memes & Genes Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 14:01:47 +1100 (EST) Jim Clark writes, >Viruses? Wow, it turns out I must be an old fart too. I thought it was >radical when I timidly suggested that machines may soon have a few faint >glimmerings of intelligence and not just be data processors or >servomechanisms, but that's nothing compared to brainy viruses. >How about salt crystals, are they intelligent too? Is there anything >that is NOT intelligent? I don't like to introduce dictionaries into a debate, but since this is a dictionary flame I guess I have to. My concise OED has a functional definition of "intelligent" as "able to vary its behaviour in response to varying situations, requirements and past experience". It seems plain that phenomena like the HIV virus's mutable protein coat are sufficient to qualify under this definition. What good such hair-splitting does I have no idea. But as to salt crystals, you might like to read Seth Lloyd's article on quantum computing in the October Scientific American. Lloyd suggests that salt crystals might make a dandy substrate for quantum computers, and so they could be made to house vast intelligence, no matter who's dictionary you prefer. > >I'm sorry, did you mean human intelligence? > >I mente the only kind of intelligence I know anything about, the kind that >deals in abstraction, foresight, induction and deduction. Aren't dictionaries fun! > >humans have proven eager to act in ways that are counter to > >the purpose of passing on their genes. Apart from > >homosexuality, we enjoy warfare, suicides, high-fat diets, > >smoking, drinking, risky sports, celibacy and breeding > >without regard to resource limitations. > >You're mixing genes and memes and two separate theories, one >about biology and one about the mind. Um, I'm not the one claiming that the continuity of our genetic information predisposes us towards certain behaviours, or that our genetic information has anything to do with "the meaning of life". The mixup is yours, not mine. >The things you're talking about are memes not genes and the two >can have very different goals. For example, A celibate person >and his genes can not reproduce, but the celibacy meme can and >does reproduce. That set's the stage for a battle between the >genes and memes, sometimes the gene wins and the person breaks his >vow of celibacy, sometimes the meme wins and the person has no offspring. Gee, perhaps you're right. Or perhaps it is all explained by natal horological astrology. Since there's no science to support either memetics or astrology, I guess there's no way to say. But I'm well aware that both schools of thought have their True Believers, and I really don't want to argue with anyone's faith ... > >If we were actually blessed with such a predisposition, > >[...] a bigger seller would be a business that pasted human > >DNA into amoebae, algae and other highly procreative > >organisms. > >Genes could never tell us to do that, because genes don't known >anything about humans, DNA, amoebas, algae, procreation, or >anything else. Knowing about things is memes work. Huh? But didn't you just tell me that a celibate has some kind of internal conflict between his "genetic predisposition" and his thetans and engrams? Oh, sorry, wrong cult ... and his memetic information? >Also, genes that are in animals that have >large brains often do better in a complex world than genes in >smaller brained beasts. That's why we have big brains. Here's a human gene ... here's an algal gene ... which is more successful? What a ridiculous question! But really, if you had to place your money on either algae or humans to survive the next millenium, which would be the better bet? I'd be happy to take your money if only there were a way for me to collect ... -- mailto: | Accept Everything. | http://www.zip.com.au/~pete/ | Reject Nothing. | Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5385