Re: Serious concern

From: Scott Chase (ecphoric@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed 27 Aug 2003 - 02:20:14 GMT

  • Next message: Van oost Kenneth: "Serious concern/ addition"

    >From: "Van oost Kenneth" <kennethvanoost@belgacom.net>
    >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    >To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    >Subject: Re: Serious concern
    >Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:30:14 +0200
    >
    >
    >----- Original Message -----
    >From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
    >Virginia,
    > > >If those numbers are true, this is indeed a VERY serious concern. I
    > > >myself have tended to believe in "live and let live" with regard to
    >Scott,
    > > There's no way I'm aware of that cultural information (artifacts or
    > > socifacts) or neurally encoded memory (mentifacts) could breach through
    >the
    > > barrier between the somatic cell and germ cell (ie- stuff such as
    >"memes"
    >or
    > > neural correlates passing from neurons to sperm or eggs into the genetic
    > > material that influences subsequent generations).
    >
    >What can breach are all kind of sorts of prones where by the susceptibility
    >to be affected are increased or descreased.
    >
    ???

    I can't see how the susceptibility to ideas can breach Weismann's barrier. Neither ideas nor susceptibility to ideas passes from soma (ie- neural templates) to the germline (ie- genetic templates) to impact the offspring.

    Ideas can be passed vertically from the parents' brains to the offsrings' brains via communication. No genetically heritable changes need apply.

    Sorry, I'm really strict on this one. If you wanna topple Weismann's barrier and the central dogma of nucleotides leading to peptides but not vice versa, then you better get some rigid arguments behind you. Otherwise there's NO reason to even speculate that neo-Lamarckian mechanisms are at play.
    >
    >People raised in mids where solidarity/ love and respect for the
    >neighbours,
    >for life and the fear for the devil and for death influence their lives,
    >are
    >likely
    >to pass on those conceptions despite the fact that some aren't based upon
    >' real ' things.
    >
    You need to be clearer on what you mean by "pass". If you mean passed as an ideation vertically transmitted via communication, then I have no argument with you. If you mean passed into the germ line, breaching Weismann's barrier and contradicting Central Dogma, that's where we part ways.

    _________________________________________________________________ Enter for your chance to IM with Bon Jovi, Seal, Bow Wow, or Mary J Blige using MSN Messenger http://entertainment.msn.com/imastar

    =============================================================== 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 : Wed 27 Aug 2003 - 02:24:48 GMT