Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA05947 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:04:07 GMT Message-ID: <001501c0999f$5c781fc0$0d0fbed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C65@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Lesser genes than expected Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:37:35 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 9:45 AM
Subject: RE: Less genes than expected
> 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.
> 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.
Hi Vincent,
Yes indeed, it would be intriguing, but on the other hand maybe we have
always looked at/ for the wrong side of the coin.
Maybe intelligence, self- awareness,...has less to do with genetics but
more with memetics.
Perhaps we can end here the discussion about the dichotomy mind/ body;
energy/ matter; subject/ object.
Maybe mind and body are more than genes and DNA- sequences than
we had thought, maybe they are two seperate things after all.
We have on the one side the biological germ- line to genes and IMO,
the interaction of those far fewer genes can 't possible make up the
whole of our reality. Or you have to assume that genes have an enor-
mious capacity to store all kinds of different info, but with the additional
ability to ' choose ' between two kinds of info to answer a certain
question raised. And in that respect, you can 't exclude the possibility
that, that kind of info needed to the gene has to be memetic in origin.
How would a gene ( a biological entitiy) be able, in a short nic of time
to answer a question raised by the environment !?
IMO, it can 't !!
So, we are back to square one, is there a germ- line to memes !?
It is still not proven, and I for one consider there is something like that.
The question of nurture and/ or that lesser genes give more importance
to nurture and memes, gives on the one hand indeed not a higher status
to the memes. In a way genes and memes are equally balanced on the
scale of importance.
But, like I said before, I am an individualist and I try to understand in
what way memes can help me in being an individual.
And in that respect I do think that memes have a higher status.
We humans, now it seems only possess 30. 000 genes, but we are all
different, not so much genetically, but memetically.
We seperate us from one another, not by the form of genes, but in how
we fill up,...to how we contribute memetically to what the instruction of
the gene is all about.
And in that respect in a sense nurture gives nature something back and
in return nature gives us a memetic bias (inherited ) to start life with.
And in fact, you can built a whole new metaphysics upon this notion.
But that is not what you are after, I suppose !?
Best,
Kenneth
( I am, because we are)
===============================================================
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 : Sun Feb 18 2001 - 11:09:04 GMT