Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA06761 (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 16:58:50 GMT From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:01:50 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Message-ID: <3A8FAB9E.16588.104052@localhost> In-reply-to: <3A8FAAA1.3531.C61E0@localhost> References: <002b01c099a3$1abeba40$0d0fbed4@default> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 18 Feb 2001, at 10:57, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2001, at 13:04, Kenneth Van Oost wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Mark Mills <mmills@htcomp.net>
> >
> >
> > > At 10:49 AM 2/17/01 -0800, you wrote:
> > > >But the idea of a memetic germ line is still a problem. Memory
> > > >organization does not pass directly from person to person, while
> > > >genes and chromosomes do pass directly from parent to child.
> > > Maybe the term 'ontogenetic replicator' would make more sense?
> > > That's the model I'm suggesting. Once ontogeny starts, the
> > > organism begins memorizing. The memory structures that can be
> > > replicated are memes. Consider the notion of an 'object-oriented
> > > database' with multiple levels of organization and the ability to
> > > bootstrap itself.
> > > That's the model I have in mind. An object-oriented
> > > datastructure
> > > that builds itself. The fact that cellular replication uses source
> > > DNA does and memetics uses sources itself does not change the
> > > parallel nature of the activity. I think the recent publication of
> > > human genome findings supports this objected oriented,
> > > bootstrapping datastructure concept. Both memes and genes use it.
> > > The difference is their substrates.
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > Same argument here for you as for Bill. Your ontogenetic replicator
> > concept seems to be following the lines of what I see as the fractal
> > structure of evolution....(L )amarckain/ (D )arwinian...and so
> > on...L/ D/ L / D/... Strange though, that having lesser genes than
> > expected had to come to this...but I like it !! Maybe I do not have
> > to stop thinking stuff like this after all...
> >
> Actually, what Mark is describing sounds a whole lot like
> autopoetic theory (AUTOPOEISIS AND COGNITION: THE
> REALIZATION OF THE LIVING, Maturana & Varela, 1980;
> PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGICAL AUTONOMY, Varela, 1979).
Oh, I forgot to mention; autopoetic theory is Darwinian, not
Lamarckian.
>
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Kenneth
> >
> > ( I am, because we are) back on track
> >
> >
> > =============================================================== 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 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 - 17:01:02 GMT