Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA19996 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:32:14 GMT Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:29:58 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Genome Project Message-ID: <20010221182958.A579@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C64@inchna.stir.ac.uk> <000701c09857$675d0520$400abed4@default> <20010217090353.A586@reborntechnology.co.uk> <001401c0999f$5b8d2380$0d0fbed4@default> <20010219103359.A786@reborntechnology.co.uk> <000b01c09b7a$b03a4ca0$8502bed4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i In-Reply-To: <000b01c09b7a$b03a4ca0$8502bed4@default>; from Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be on Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 09:20:36PM +0100 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 09:20:36PM +0100, 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 don't think there's an implication that genes are "active" in any sense.
I've seen a tool that has a screwdriver blade at one end and a hammer head
at the other. It does one job in one context and the other in another.
No "switching" required. Isn't that quite close to multifunctionality
in genes?
> 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 !?
No, they don't. Memes can only influence genes by affecting reproductive
behaviour.
> 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 !?
As I understand it, all mutation is effectively random.
> 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.
They never were selfish -- they always cooperated massively. If you
say that's because cooperation is in their own interests, then I say,
what has changed?
> The result of a multiple- functional gene mutating has to show itself as
> more
> differences than we today into a population.
Can't parse that.
> And we humans, are not that genetical different at the species level.
> Our differences are due to memetical interactions with the environment.
Irrelevant.
-- 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 : Wed Feb 21 2001 - 18:34:31 GMT