Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA19783 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:33:16 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C6C@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Less genes than expected Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:32:36 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
It was just a typo...
> ----------
> From: Scott Chase
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 11:48 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Less genes than expected
>
>
>
>
>
> >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 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 Feb 14 2001 - 11:35:28 GMT