Message-Id: <3435135A.1454@rug.ac.be>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 08:46:34 -0700
From: Mario Vaneechoutte <Mario.Vaneechoutte@rug.ac.be>
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Replicators, was Non Homuncular Memetics
Aaron Lynch wrote:
> To take a very strict, rigid definition, autocatalysis does not exist. But
> the same strictness also implies that enzymes, for instance, are not true
> catalysts: they depend on all sorts of other molecules, including a vast
> assembly of "water molecules." Setting aside this prohibitively strict
> definition of catalysis, we see that "water molecules," for instance, are
> co-catalysts to enzymes.
Moreover, we see that enzymes can be
> autocatalytic: Cytochrome C, for example, catalyzes reactions that help
> bring on new molecules of cytochrome C -- both in the same cell and in
> daughter cells. In other words, you could very well decide to call
> Cytochrome C a "replicator." Yet biologists have discovered that the
> synthesis of new enzyme molecules in a cell always involves nucleic acids
> at some point. This has led to the "central focus" on nucleic acids as
> autocatalyists and replicators.
Indeed biologists have focused on nucleic acids, for many good reasons.
However, it is often forgotten that to replicate, a cell need not only
inherit these informational molecules, but also some minimum of
processors (enzymes) which can interprete and duplicate the DNA, and
also membranes: DNA does not encode the formation of membranes de novo,
it only encodes for enzymes which can synthetise new membrane taking
existing membrane (in some distant way resembling the way DNA is
replicated). The only independent replicator on Earth is the cell which
can be regarded as a system of molecules forming a closed semantic
circle. It is here that the basic dissimilarity with memes can be found:
memes are merely used for information exchange between different
processors. In opposition to genetic biology, these processors (I mean
us) are not encoded by the information contained in memes.
> Even if you disagree with some of the beliefs that catalyzed Dawkins's
> overture on memetics, I should add that my own involvement in memetics did
> not result from prior exposure to Dawkins. I would have introduced the
> subject using a different neologism if Dawkins had never published.
Which neologism???
> Moreover, I do not favor dependence on analogies except as pedagogic
> devices and sources of initial inspiration. Mature memetic science should
> not DEPEND on analogies.
You should explain that. Isn't (scientific) understanding based on
building analog models. Or do you rather mean that science should not
depend on metaphor (which usually is meant to be pegagogic)
> --
>
> --Aaron Lynch
>
> THOUGHT CONTAGION:
> How Belief Spreads Through Society
> The New Science of Memes
> Basic Books. Info and free sample:
> http://www.mcs.net/~aaron/thoughtcontagion.html
>
> ===============================================================
> 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
-- Mario Vaneechoutte Laboratory Bacteriology & Virology Blok A, De Pintelaan 185 University Hospital Ghent Belgium 9000 Ghent Tel: +32 9 240 36 92 Fax: +32 9 240 36 59 E-mail: Mario.Vaneechoutte@rug.ac.be Editor J. Memetics: 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