RE: Defining the word "replicator" (was Re: Silent memes)

From: Lawrence DeBivort (debivort@umd5.umd.edu)
Date: Tue 05 Aug 2003 - 15:47:18 GMT

  • Next message: AaronLynch@aol.com: "Re: Defining the word "replicator" (was Re: Silent memes)"

    I wonder whether there is confusing arising from Dawkins' terminology?

    A "replicator" should be the thing that is doing the replication, and not that thing that is being replicated.

    The thing that is being replicated should be called a "REPLICATEE", and the thing doing the replication should be called the "REPLICATOR" -- this reflects standard subject/object usage, unless I am mistaken.

    Does this help?

    Cheers, Lawry

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
    > Of AaronLynch@aol.com
    > Sent: Tue, August 05, 2003 11:22 AM
    > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Subject: Re: Defining the word "replicator" (was Re: Silent memes)
    >
    >
    > In a message dated 8/5/2003 4:52:47 AM Central Daylight
    > Time, Derek Gatherer dgatherer2002@yahoo.co.uk writes:
    >
    > > --- AaronLynch@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated
    > >
    > > > do please
    > > > quote that
    > > > definition verbatim in its entirety, again with
    > > > source and
    > > > page numbers.
    > >
    > > You're looking for something along the lines of:
    > >
    > > REPLICATOR: noun, c.1976. An entity which ...... and
    > > is further defined by.....
    > >
    > > in the space of a paragraph or so. I doubt if you'll
    > > find anything like that, as it isn't the style of the
    > > biology literature to provide that kind of thing - too
    > > many exceptions, too messy a subject. There is a
    > > secondary literature, eg. the Penguin Dictionary of
    > > Biology, where you can look up definitions, but these
    > > are designed for first-year students to get to grips
    > > with the terminology, rather than being any 'official'
    > > definitions.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > Biology is indeed a messier subject than physics or maths,
    > so I agree that I should not expect all the exactitude I
    > would find in those fields.
    >
    > Dawkins seems to have already considered the first-year
    > students and other members of his wider audience, and
    > provided a glossary at the end of his book _The Extended
    > Phenotype_. The full entry for the word "replicator" reads:
    >
    > "REPLICATOR: Any entity in the universe of which copies are
    > made. Chapter 5 contains an extended discussion of
    > replicators, and a classification of active/passive, and
    > germ-line/dead-end replicators." (p. 293)
    >
    > His definition is very broad, extending beyond biology and
    > into other fields such as the social sciences and indeed,
    > even into physics.
    >
    > --Aaron Lynch
    >
    > Thought Contagion Science Page:
    > http://www.thoughtcontagion.com
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue 05 Aug 2003 - 15:47:19 GMT