RE: Who knew genes could get mean?

From: Gatherer, D. (Derek) (D.Gatherer@organon.nhe.akzonobel.nl)
Date: Wed Dec 20 2000 - 07:32:58 GMT

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: Self-defense" 

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA16026 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 20 Dec 2000 07:50:33 GMT
Message-ID: <A4400389479FD3118C9400508B0FF2300411B1@DELTA.newhouse.akzonobel.nl>
From: "Gatherer, D. (Derek)" <D.Gatherer@organon.nhe.akzonobel.nl>
To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Who knew genes could get mean?
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:32:58 +0100
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    Misy:
    Is it possible that "instincts" are in fact primitive memes, and
    therefore a babies behaviour is selected for in order to illicit as much
    parental care as is necessary in order to survive infanthood?

    Derek:
    I don't understand. How can an instinct be a meme? Memes have to be
    cultural in some way (regardless of which school of what-is-a-meme you
    belong to). Instincts surely can't be cultural without a total redefinition
    of what an instinct is. I think you are implying that Lorenz was wrong
    about instincts, but if so, why?

    ===============================================================
    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 2b29 : Wed Dec 20 2000 - 07:52:00 GMT