From: Reed Konsler (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri 16 May 2003 - 18:00:24 GMT
After all, yes, there _is_ a process that needs to _function_, and in order to function, actors are needed.
Not just the script, not just the stage, not just the audience sitting and waiting, but, an actor performing, and all are needed together, not just one at a time, or one over there and one over here.
You can say the same thing about genetics. Genes don't replicate or mutate outside of context (or venue). And yet, scientists seem to think that genes are encoded in DNA and not in the context of replication. Are they misguided?
Who would argue that replication doesn't require a mechanism? And yet, it is no element of the mechanism of replication (actors, stage) nor the single instantaneous performance that is replicated. If the performance appears again, that doesn't neccesarily imply that the performance is being replicated. If my father has brown eyes, that doesn't mean my eyes have been replicated from them. The genes, carried in the *physical* DNA, are replicated and then re-expressed in me.
Our struts and frets are but an hour upon the stage, and then heard no more: nothing. It is the tale, life's walking shadow, that creeps it's petty pace from all our yesterdays to 'morrow and the last syllable of recorded time.
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 : Sun 18 May 2003 - 00:01:25 GMT