Re[3]: Robert Aunger essay

From: Keith Henson (
Date: Sat 15 Apr 2006 - 20:11:22 GMT

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: Robert Aunger essay"

    At 12:29 PM 4/15/2006 +0100, you wrote:
    >Friday, April 14, 2006, 6:31:55 PM, Keith wrote:
    > > I see it, having made the same argument for years as well. I go a bit
    > > further that genes can be in any storage medium as well. The difference in
    > > these classes of information is that memes to have real world influence
    > > have to be in a brain, genes have to be in cells, and likewise a computer
    > > virus has to be in the proper computer/OS. Otherwise all three are all
    > > just inactive bits.
    >I don't see this difference. ANY information will be "inactive bits"
    >in some contexts and significant in others.

    That's certainly true.

    All three fit into a more general category, replicators, but we name the subclasses depending on where they normally are active--which usually included having real world effects, like hemophilia, erasing your hard drive, or this stupid song stuck in your head.

    There are all kinds of odd corner cases. For example, when a human mind is implemented in computer hardware does it get infected with a meme or a computer virus? They just aren't worth worrying about.

    Keith Henson

    =============================================================== 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 Apr 2006 - 20:36:19 GMT