From: Philip Jonkers (email@example.com)
Date: Fri 18 Oct 2002 - 07:55:02 GMT
> > But, if we can posit that genes _propagate_ as selfish genes indirectly,
> > through agents, that is a problem. It is a problem setting up the
> > rationale behind the genes' influence- making it something not
> > intrinsically accidental or random or just along for the ride.
> > Selfishness is a lamarckian attribute, even the benign selfishness of
> > directed continuation that is at the heart of the Dawkins' metaphor.
> > Selfishness is another name for a marker system uninfluentially- by
> > indirections finding directions out, which is the process of life and
> > evolution all themselves, wandering amongst mutations and environments
> > until fits happen. We look back and see motives for the parts if we
> > want, but we can just as easily see accidents and chance, especially if
> > we look at all that didn't propagate.
> Yep, although metaphores such as genes being selfish have their merit
> in giving imaginative insight interpretational problems arise indeed
> if these metaphores are taken literally. But I think we are aware of
> that already...
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri 18 Oct 2002 - 08:02:56 GMT