From: Kate Distin (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed 30 Mar 2005 - 12:24:55 GMT
Keo Ormsby wrote:
> "Kate Distin" wrote:
>> The claim that there exist social facts, independent of the members of
>> society about which they are facts, may be received with incredulity.
>> Such "facts" can seem rather mysterious and unconvincing.
> But alas, this also happens with genes. What do we mean when we say that
> a gene "exists"? Does it necessarily have to have a manifestation in an
> organism? I can download a sequence from GeneBank and change an
> aminoacid that I reasonably know will not hamper its expression, but
> might have phenotypic effects. Is this a new gene existing only in
> cyberspace? Or it is not a gene until someone synthesizes it and puts it
> in and organism? It is clear (at least to me) that genes exist
> independently from pirimidines and purines, in the same way that social
> facts exist independently from individuals. It is only *relevant* to
> study them if they are expressed in some way.
> Keo Ormsby
I agree - the same information can be represented in several different
ways, and additionally those representations may be realized in a
variety of different media. This must be as true for genes as for memes.
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 : Wed 30 Mar 2005 - 12:41:41 GMT