From: Chris Taylor (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri 13 Feb 2004 - 13:49:41 GMT
Is this really true? Can we have a quick show of hands? Biology doesn't
actually have any laws as such, memetics doesn't properly exist, and
I'll be buggered if I believe sociology or psychology have any (we do
mean law in the Physicists' sense yeah?), and certainly wouldn't want to
assert any law-like beliefs about the interrelationships of non-law
things (kind of like trying to rivet jellies together).
I thought we were well past the starting point. Fundamentally, memes
(define at will) and genes[*] are parts of a complex system, so it's useful to look for commonalities (and there are plenty), along with analogies (of which there are loads as well), and as a parallel activity, differences (perhaps the quickest route to some insight in all the fields concerned -- bear in mind that work done in 'memetics' can provide insights for mainstream biologists too).
[*] Btw the parallels are not just with genes but with whatever the
appropriate level of selection is -- base/residue, sequence feature,
'gene'/cistron, coadapted complex, cell assemblage (cancer being a good example of a conflict), individual, 'group', ecosystem, whatever.
> The majority of those who post here seem to have a
> naive belief that the analogy of meme=gene and of
> ideas spread via Darwinian evolution is a law. IT IS
> ONLY A STARTING POINT.
> WE need to move PAST the starting point folks. And we
> need to stop trying to assert that the similarities of
> an analogy override the differences.
Chris Taylor (email@example.com)
MIAPE Project -- psidev.sf.net
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 13 Feb 2004 - 14:02:21 GMT