Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA08921 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:05:02 GMT From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:08:32 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Message-ID: <3A7E89B0.28777.2C98F6@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010205131123.B507@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C32@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 12:46:45PM -0000 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 5 Feb 2001, at 13:11, Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 12:46:45PM -0000, Vincent Campbell wrote: > >
> Seeing free will or choice as the determinant of memes thus is not >
> the full picture.
>
> I think it's worth noting, even if you don't agree, that some, such as
> Blackmore, would suggest that it's memes that give (the illusion of)
> free will.
>
OTOH, some of us would maintain that symbiont memes increase
our range of choices, and therefore expand the options available to
an actually obtaining free will, and that memetic evolution being
any more robust than genetic evolution (and it must be, to
supercede it) requires conscious choice and direction, both as to
the memes engineered from existing memes, and as to the choice
whether or not to accept or reject proferred memes, rather than the
random mutation / natural selection scenario obtaining in genetics.
The absurdity of that entire everyone's-a-memebot argument is
forcefully brought home to us when we consider genetic
engineering; by such logic it must be unsuccessful, for it is a
manifestation of realized intention, which is impossible in the
absence of free will. It could not, therefore, operate any more
rapidly than evolution, and would in fact have to be just another
roundabout kind of blind mutational process, foreordained since the
instant of the Big Bang in a lockstep superdeterministic world. In
fact, the entire reason why we would develop the self-awareness
we apodictically possess would be unclear, since it would not be
able to make a reproductively effective difference in such a world,
and the chances of something so complex evolving in the absence
of a use which responded positively to environmental pressures
would have to be vanishingly small.
> --
> Robin Faichney
> robin@reborntechnology.co.uk
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 2b29 : Mon Feb 05 2001 - 17:06:59 GMT