RE: Lesser genes than expected

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Feb 19 2001 - 14:44:19 GMT

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA09833 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:44:56 GMT
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C8B@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
    To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: Lesser genes than expected
    Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:44:19 -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
    

    > ----------
    > From: Kenneth Van Oost
    > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 11:37 am
    > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Subject: Re: Lesser genes than expected
    >
    >
    >>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.
    >
            <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.>
    >
            I don't think mind and body are separate, in any sense.

            <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 !!>
    >
            It depends on what you're looking for genes to do. If you're saying
    'can genes_alone_make brains?' then the answer has to be yes. If you're
    saying 'can genes_alone_produce minds?' I would still say yes. If you
    saying 'can genes_alone_produce what's in minds?' then the answer is, IMHO,
    no.

            <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 !?>
    >
            But how genuinely different are we? What does it mean to say we are
    different from each other? It is our socio-cultural environment that
    determines our specific means of communication (i.e. not our capacity for
    language, but whatever specific language we are brought up speaking), and
    that, in turn, arguably shapes our thinking. But that specific language,
    not matter how long it is spoken for, never becomes encoded in our genes.
    No-one has ever been born speaking a specific language. It's always learnt,
    as is most other traits we call cultural (I want to leave some room here for
    behavioural characteristics that may have genetic bases, like mate
    selection).

            Vincent

    ===============================================================
    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 : Mon Feb 19 2001 - 14:47:10 GMT