Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA16229 (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 21:59:01 GMT From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:02:45 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Genome Project Message-ID: <3A929525.16210.1DB383@localhost> In-reply-to: <000b01c09b7a$b03a4ca0$8502bed4@default> 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 21:20, Kenneth Van Oost wrote:
> Hi Robin,
> I wrote,
> > > IMO, still, gene products can be permeable with things like
> > > memetic
> info.
> > > That info allowes the gene to " mutate " and that cell is than to
> > > be inherited by the progeny.
> You wrote,
> > I'm sorry, this seems like sheer nonsense to me. Genes do not need
> > information, they are not computers, if there's any "editing" going
> > on, it is certainly not of that sort.
>
> << I didn't say they were !
> My point is when genes were to be multiple functional they have to
> have a inbedded ability to ' choose ' or to switch from one function
> to another in order to respond to the stimuli. And I understand that
> they can do that, willingly and without asking question.
>
> I better have used the term ' input' instead of info.
> But anyway, to switch to the matter in question genes needs ' input',
> something that makes it ' choose '_ and that can be IMO memetical in
> origin, even though that other genes contribute to this process, the '
> input ' can be memetical. Memes drives genes, remerber !?
>
They respond to molecular triggers, which are at root chemicals
using a lock-and-key interface. You may consider such an even
memetic only if you consider chemical structure to be
informational. I do not; the many differing configurations in which
one may align the same molecules to encode information (such as
graphite molecules on a page) I consider memetic.
> Genes mutate because something was added or is removed. In both
> cases it is some kind of info ( that something ), or are all mutations
> due to either self- organization and pure randomness !? And even then,
> is there no change in what kind of info the gene possesses !? I always
> thought, that you can take the meme- concept to its extremes, but like
> the genome rapport shows us now, not anymore the genes- con- cept.
>
> Genes can 't be that selfish anymore due to their multi- functional
> attitude. The result of a multiple- functional gene mutating has to
> show itself as more differences than we today into a population. And
> we humans, are not that genetical different at the species level. Our
> differences are due to memetical interactions with the environment.
>
> 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 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 - 22:01:19 GMT