X-Message-Number: 5417
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 20:11:32 -0800
From: John K Clark <>
Subject: Genes and Memes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In #5402 Peter Merel <> On Tue, 12 Dec 1995 Wrote:
>The great thing about the Turing test is that it is pure
>irony. How do we know something is sentient? Well, first
>take n sentient things to judge ... but how do we know the
>judges are sentient?
There are not judges, there is only a judge, and the judge is you.
The Turing test is not needed for you to know that the judge (you) are
conscious, introspection will do that, but you do need the test if you want
to know if I may be conscious.
Peter, do you think your fellow human beings are conscious? If so why?
Is everybody conscious? Are they conscious all the time?
What about people who are asleep, or in a coma, or dead?
What about people of a different sex than you, or a different race than you,
or a different shoe size than you?
Can you PROVE that ANYTHING in the universe is conscious but you?
Can you PROVE to me that you are conscious?
Can I PROVE to you that I am conscious?
Don't feel bad, I can't prove it either, but The Turing Test
tells me that some things (like you) ACT conscious and that's
just going to have to be good enough for me.
>genes don't *predict* human behaviour.
I agree, except sometimes in very broad outline.
>you're saying that human behaviour can be predicted by
>genetic makeup.
Certainly not! If that was true we wouldn't need a brain, and I've found mine
to come in handy from time to time.
>>I'll be glad to tell you what the meaning of life
>>is just as soon as you explain to me in a non
>>circular manner the meaning of the word "meaning".
>Purpose, intention, aim, goal -
I smell an infinite regress.
To answer the question "what is the meaning of meaning?" you must first know
the answer to " what is the meaning of "what is the meaning of meaning""
but to answer that question you must first know the answer to
what is the meaning of "what is the meaning of "what is the meaning of
meaning"""
but to answer that question you must first know the answer to ...
I'd also like to know the purpose of purpose, intention's intention ,
aim's aim, and goal's goal.
The meaning of an expression, even the meaning of meaning is not
found in definitions, it is found in it's use. Definitions are
just tools, they are not our master.
>It's interesting that you've snipped the scientology reference.
It's my practice to keep quoted material to a minimum, I don't
like to read gobs of it in other peoples posts. I routinely
omit irrelevancies, or gratuitous insults, or remarks that say
I'm all wrong but declines to say why, or pointing to foolish
theories that neither I nor any intelligent person would believe
in and then saying it's somehow related to the theory I do
believe in, without giving any specifics.
>Why would it become extinct? We've seen that "rubbish" DNA
>can hang around in our genes indefinitely
Not indefinitely. Junk DNA mutates much faster than DNA that codes for
protein, that's because most mutations are harmful, so the phenotype can't
reproduce and the mutated genes don't get passed on to future generations.
With junk DNA there is no such thing as a harmful or a helpful change,
it's all useless anyway so all mutations get passed on.
>It might even be possible, given a billion years or so, that
>the evolved descendants of our mad biologists might
>themselves become mad biologists, and pass some of the same
>genes along via another rocket ...
Even if true it wouldn't help. The mutation will thrive if it
is an improvement in the present environment. If the mutation
doesn't work well in this environment the fact that it might work
great 2 or 3 environments down the road won't help it. It's dead meat.
Evolution has no foresight, it doesn't understand one step
backwards 2 steps forward, it only cares if it leads to a better
organism NOW. That's one reason nature does such a poor job.
Imagine if we built things that way.
A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane.
I give you a prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet but
you must do it while the engine is running, you must do it in
one million small steps, and you must do it so every one of those
steps improves the operation of the engine at that instant. You
might eventually improve the engine but I doubt it would be a jet.
Nature doesn't always have a good reason for doing things it's
way and there's no reason to think that evolution will always
come up with the best solution, being better than the competition
is good enough. It's no wonder it took 4 billion years to produce us,
now it's our turn and we can do a better job.
>To talk about "strategies" again implies that the
>perpetuation of DNA is the goal - and we're back to
>teleology again.
This is starting to get a little silly but OK, for one last time
I will translate it into politically correct language for your benefit.
Fast reproduction and short lived creatures is one way to achieve a
local maximum, having a brain and long lived creatures is a way to achieve
another local maximum. Nobody knows which one will turn out to be a universal
maximum or even if a third possibility that evolution never found could be it.
As I said, I don't apologize for using anthropomorphic terms nor do I intend
to repeat my reasons why.
>there seems a chance that within the next millenium we
>humans will give up DNA as a means of perpetuating ourselves
I agree, unless we blow it at the last second, but the important thing about
DNA is the information in it, not the chemicals it is made out of.
>if nanotech works out and we head for the stars. At that
>point, do you reckon that DNA's "strategy" will have
>succeeded or failed?
Then I would say that the big brain, long life strategy was a huge success,
that is, that it was a universal maximum. I would also say at that point the
difference between genes and memes would be very fuzzy indeed.
John K Clark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCzAgUBMM+gvH03wfSpid95AQE19ATw79aLoNqTx85Uric5dImoKfzNQNOu71RB
NgO8gqTV+3gpI+lqKeESo+5ExcGysbiYwmfy5o/tlINnEip/4GDutTS5dQaw/FRT
eP8zy7i+6Fgcpzt9NKxhku5UCjd7KlT/rceDxNvOzvWgK5jjWP9+UmUjY4qxbmdj
HZ7X3zfdVI/6t/BJ7k7uiN8C4iOgG7HghmuRFSCdiCqrxyxaINM=
=TwJT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5417