Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution

From: Robin Faichney (robin@reborntechnology.co.uk)
Date: Tue Feb 20 2001 - 18:53:34 GMT

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: Genome Project"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA15473 (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 19:01:34 GMT
    Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:53:34 +0000
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
    Message-ID: <20010220185334.A617@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    References: <20010220153445.AAA27141@camailp.harvard.edu@[205.240.180.23]>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Disposition: inline
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i
    In-Reply-To: <20010220153445.AAA27141@camailp.harvard.edu@[205.240.180.23]>; from wade_smith@harvard.edu on Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:34:45AM -0500
    From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:34:45AM -0500, Wade T.Smith wrote:
    > Hi Robin Faichney -
    >
    > >The difference between living and non-living entities is that, with life,
    > >we have stable items of information, as opposed to mere matter.
    >
    > Scratching at definitions yet again, it would appear that with life, what
    > we _don't_ have is stability, but rather the ability to fit, be maleable.
    >
    > Like in the fable about the oak tree and the willow.

    You're right, this is about definitions, and using the definition
    of "stable" that's most common in the more technical and scientific
    disciplines, the willow is more stable, precisely because it has enough
    flexibility to survive.

    > Life is an entity in the wind, and there is nothing really stable in
    > nature at all. Never has been. 'Fit' is an accident of timing, nutrition,
    > and place.

    Depends what we mean by "stable", and I'm using the standard meaning.

    > And I wonder at 'stable items of information' as well, since, what is
    > surviving is a very dymanic, and constantly capable of changing, set of
    > organic entities.

    Not if we accept the main message of The Selfish Gene.

    > Even death is not stable in this universe, except in the sense that it
    > has no abilities.
    >
    > So, all we mean by 'stable' here is a rather low down definition of
    > 'stable', specifically, from the American Heritage Dictionary, #3.a.
    > "Consistently dependable", in that, yes, we have a dynamic process, life,
    > but we can depend upon it changing to fit ever-changing environmental
    > conditions, and this process, being the process that arose to begin life
    > in the first place, is of a consistent dependibility.
    >
    > So far....
    >
    > But, to me, that's stretching the word 'stable' way too far.

    I'd suggest that's your problem.

    -- 
    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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 20 2001 - 19:03:48 GMT