Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA17821 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:50:42 GMT X-Originating-IP: [209.240.221.102] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: RE: Less genes than expected Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:48:07 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F54Mg1m7bjPsfzCXFcc0000ab47@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2001 23:48:07.0827 (UTC) FILETIME=[6A4DC630:01C09617] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
>Subject: RE: Less genes than expected
>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:45:58 -0000
>
> > >> In the UK, reporting said much the same, but on a TV news interview
> > john
> > >> shulston said that the fact that there are fewere genes that thought
>a
> > few
> > >> years ago doesn't change the basic notion that both nature and nuture
> > are
> > >> important.
> >
> > < I agree with this, Vincent, but you have to agree with the fact, from
>a
> > meme- eye- view ( and I don 't mean here Blackmore 's stance) that now
> > memetics in general is of a greater importance than it used to be,
> > don 't you !?
> > Now memes as pieces of information strike another part of the balance.
> > You do see that, don 't you !?
> > And I equally agree with Jess Tauber post, a lot is still open to
> > debate...
> > I suggest we begin immediately...>
> >
> Well Kenneth, again I don't disagree with the importance of nuture,
>but I do disagree that the number of genes automatically gives nuture, and
>thus memes, a higher status.
>
First off, what's nuture? Is it a misspelling of nature or of nurture? I
assume from the context (ie- "memes") you mean nurture.
>
> It will no be intriguing, for example, to see how searches for the
>biological basis of intelligence are now undertaken. There has to be a
>biological, i.e. genetic, basis for things like intelligence,
>self-awareness
>etc. but now we know they must emerge from the interaction of far fewer
>genes than thought a few years ago.
>
>
Interaction of genes (the epigenetic side of things) is important. Nature
versus nurture is poorly put. Maybe it's nuture, a new word (neologism)
referring to the complex interplay of genes within their ecological context
to form a mature organism from simpler beginnings as a zygote.
The future brings nuture.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
===============================================================
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 13 2001 - 23:53:31 GMT