Re: The evolution of "evolution"

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Sat 15 Oct 2005 - 13:42:24 GMT

  • Next message: Derek Gatherer: "Re: The evolution of "evolution""

    --- Dace <> wrote:
    > Don't blame me. Blame Richard Semone and his
    > concept of mneme. As Scott
    > has painstakingly established, this insight-- that
    > personal and biological
    > memory are one and the same-- originated with
    > Semone.
    Dude at least spell his name right. The analogy of organic memory has historic interest, but it's only an analogy. The post-Semon search for the engram has concentrated on the ontogenetic memory trace. The genes involved in memory aren't themselves considered engrams by modern scientists.
    > How could a sane person believe that organisms are
    > machines, that evolution
    > can be reduced to random genetic mutation, that
    > cellular order can be
    > reduced to molecules whose behavior is as random as
    > particles in a gas, and
    > that we ourselves are mere hallucinations generated
    > by our own brains?
    Now there's something marginally memetic. Are we by nature solipsistic selfplexes?
    > I agree with Gould
    > that not everything can be accounted for by natural
    > selection.
    Then you'd better acknowledge reductionist concepts like *genetic* drift and like Kimura's neutral theory of *molecular* evolution.

    Gould was aware of Ohno's evolution by *gene* duplication, another reductionist and ingenious notion.

    __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!

    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat 15 Oct 2005 - 13:59:28 GMT