Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA10589 (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 03:07:26 GMT From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 21:09:02 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Message-ID: <3A7F166E.23114.111494@localhost> In-reply-to: <000201c08fd9$0b2c4620$691ec6cf@oemcomputer> 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 20:02, Ray Recchia wrote:
>
> ----- 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.
>
Bit there is no "we" recombining them - just a natural selection
monkey on a typewriter who is ascribed literacy and purpose when
he accidentally taps something readable out.
>
> 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 point is, however, that conscious mutation, selection and/or
rejection of memes is a more directed environment than the blind
selection of natural environments. Plus, self-conscious
awarenesses can pick some memes out of a memeplex to accept
while rejecting others, and combine them with other memes that
they possess into novel memeplexes. In genetic evolution, exactly
half cones from each parent gender, and the same half every time
(otherwise people would be left with too many for some traits and
not enough for others). This is a further constriction, as is the fact
that these changes have to occur between generations, not within
them.
>
> 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 position flies in the face of quantum indeterminacy and the
further argument that the scales of atoms and of cortical
microtubules are too widely disparate for cause-and-effect
relationships to translate lockstep between their levels, as well as
the work being done in complexity theory and fuzzy logic. In fact,
a major focus of Roger Sperry's work was how recursion in
systems possessing the prerequisite complexity, such as our
cerebral cortexes, were capable of, and indeed utilized, top-down
control (in addition to the bottom-up control which remains).
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Tue Feb 06 2001 - 03:11:26 GMT