Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA10356 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 6 Feb 2001 01:09:38 GMT Message-ID: <000201c08fd9$0b2c4620$691ec6cf@oemcomputer> From: "Ray Recchia" <rrecchia@mail.clarityconnect.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C32@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 12:46:45PM -0000 <3A7E89B0.28777.2C98F6@localhost> Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 20:02:57 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
> 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.
Genetic evolution, at least at the eukaryotic level, is not blind mutation.
Transposons, crossing over, and sexual reproduction introduce variation at a
higher level by combining functional blocks together. Let's use a
hypothetical here. Suppose we set up an imaginary limited evolutionary
system composed of the symbols A,D,E,G,H,I,O,S,T, and W. Suppose we
arbitrarily say that combinations of these of letters that are closer to
functional sentences have greater survival value. Having arrived at
SAWIDOGTHE, we could mutate this letter by to get a sentence or we could
start with the functional words SAW,I,DOG,and THE and recombine those. The
bases of DNA are molecular units composed of dozens of atoms in specific
configurations. There are mechanisms even in the simplest of organisms that
prevent variation at the base level so that guanine with an extra hydrogen
or oxygen gets corrected instead by forcing evolution to rebuild each
additional base one atom at a time. In the same way, at a higher level
groups like TATA boxes and protein domains don't have to be built from
scratch either.
In one sense evolutionary processes can be thought of a technique for
solving problems. If a species evolves the ability to fly, we can expect
that selection will over incrementally over time make that species a better
flyer. We can also think of the brain as a problem solving tool which
evolved to recognizes patterns in the external enviroment. The techniques
that it uses are much more sophisticated than those involved in DNA
evolution. Given that DNA reproduction takes place at the cellular level
and that brains are composed of trillions of cells one would only expect
more sophistication. However, I think the verdict is still out on whether
self-awareness is necessary for sophisticated problem solving techniques. It
may be that it is, and perhaps it was only speed and brute computing power
that allowed Deep Blue (I hope I have that name right) to beat Gary
Kasparov, but I am not entirely convinced that a problem solving tool needs
to be able to recognize itself in a mirror in order to figure out how to
engineer genes.
The whole free will argument is a bit of loser I think. Many people have
trouble accepting it, but we are in fact controlled by the orbits of
electrons, the laws of physics, and the diffusion of neutrotransmitters
across synapses. I thought we got past this stuff in the first couple
centuries after Newton.
===============================================================
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 : Tue Feb 06 2001 - 01:11:36 GMT