Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA13208 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:34:55 GMT From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:38:43 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Message-ID: <3A91E6C3.21498.ADD9F8@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010220090856.B1199@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <F158MqtQQC1Stvptvt4000041fe@hotmail.com>; from ecphoric@hotmail.com on Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 07:37:15PM -0500 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 20 Feb 2001, at 9:08, Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 07:37:15PM -0500, Scott Chase wrote:
> > >From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
> > >On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 08:37:23PM -0500, Wade T.Smith wrote:
> > > > >Surely all "fitness" means is that, in any given context, some
> > > > >things are more stable than others -- "fit" is what we call the
> > > > >stable ones.
> > > >
> > > > And what, pray tell, is stable?
> > >
> > >Darwin's "survival of the fittest" is really a special case of a
> > >more general law of survival of the stable. The universe is
> > >populated by stable things. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene,
> > >first edition, p13.
> > >
> > Slightly misleading historically speaking. AFAIK the "survival of
> > the fittest" cliche' was coined by Herbert Spencer. Lots of people
> > attribute it to Darwin though.
>
> I'll be pass that on to Dawkins when I see him.
>
> > >What is fit is what is stable is what survives.
> > >
> > What survives is what is fit is what is stable. Not a whole lot of
> > information there.
>
> There's a great deal of information there, but it's about definitions,
> memes if you like, not external phenomena. You're correct in your
> implication that, despite what Dawkins says, such statements are not
> laws. That does not mean, however, that they don't represent genuine
> progress in our understanding. Clarification of concepts is
> essential, because without it there are testable hypotheses that will
> never even be formulated, never mind tested.
>
> > What about differential heritable contribution to the next
> > generation? Besides, if an organism survives, this doesn't
> > necessarily mean that it has succeeded in reproducing. Someone could
> > live to the ripe old age of 70 without passing anything on besides
> > their wisdom and charm. I guess they could contribute to their
> > inclusive fitness if they helped reproductively successful relatives
> > raise their own kids though.
>
> Obviously, survivability/stability/fitness is not the whole story. No
> one is suggesting it is. The question that arose concerned fitness,
> and that was what I tried to answer, saying that it _basically_ means
> stability. This is the bottom line, shared between living and
> non-living entities. To answer _your_ question, which is a different
> one, and concerns only living entities, we need replication with
> variation and selection (at least).
>
> In fact, if we look only at genes and memes, then fitness does mean
> survivability, which does mean stability. A fit gene is simply one
> that survives, which requires stability in the relevant environment.
> The difference between living and non-living entities is that, with
> life, we have stable items of information, as opposed to mere matter.
>
Since memes, unlike genes, do not require sexual reproduction,
only communication, to propagate, all that is necessary is that the
transmitter feel like communicating them and the prospective
recipient feel like receiving them or that it happens subliminally.
These events can, and do, happen in many cases; the long-term
survival of the host is not a huge or determining factor in whether or
not all, or even most, meme will survive and prosper. The
resemblance between virulent epidemics and self-destructive
memetic fads (such as crack or ice smoking, extreme sports, or,
perhaps better, apocalyptic cults) is notable here.
> --
> Robin Faichney
> robin@reborntechnology.co.uk
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Tue Feb 20 2001 - 09:37:12 GMT