Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA04521 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 6 Aug 2001 20:42:01 +0100 Message-ID: <001901c11eb5$834f2300$c905bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745FCC@inchna.stir.ac.uk><000d01c1171c$6783d260$ddd9b3d1@teddace><002101c11a02$2099ed60$9303bed4@default><002f01c11c88$087fae80$3524f4d8@teddace><000901c11dc1$430550c0$f805bed4@default> <000d01c11e9b$238ea680$0988b2d1@teddace> Subject: Re: Logic Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 22:21:49 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
It takes only slight differences to yield a
> radically different organism. Beyond that, genetic differences serve to
> individuate the members of a species from each other.
<< Yes, of course, but in my view memes play a very important role in
the individualition of people !
IMO, genes mustn 't take all the credit for it. Memes are those entities
which make identical twins TWO people.
You see, the notion that a slight difference makes a radically different
organism, seems to me, in a genetical way of speaking, not that important.
After all, like you said chimps and humans differ only 1% genetically.
So, in my view, again memes are playing a far more greater role.
You mentioned three (f)actors by which people can differ_ genes, envi-
ronment and self- determination by which changes in those (f)actors
can be inherited by the offspring and in the long run that means evolution
No problem there, I accept that for the full 100% !!
But, we can count in a forth aspect, the aspect that memetical information,
or knowledge take your pick, is part of the genetical built up !!
Not as a part of " genetical " information to built cells...
That is, information gathered in previous times by the organism.
That information needed some attention to get it right, was thus a conscient
process ( like learning to hammer the steel on the incus), bad example,
but I hope you understand, but that info became an " automised reaction/
behavior after you did it a few times. The type of process needed here
is trial and error, but on a conscient level.
And that behavioral trait was inherited by the offspring and is nowadays
a cultural trait or a social one.
( This is also know as ' preconscious processing ', see John A. Bargh)
This view don 't conflict with my notion of epimemetic landscapes, in
fact it explains them.
> Mechanistic theory divides memory into two kinds. The body's memory is
> stored in genes, while the mind's memory is stored in the brain. In
> Sheldrake's model, memory is singular. Every organ, including the brain,
> remembers via resonance with similar organs from the past. The "mind" is
> thus the memory that keeps each organ functioning the way it always has
> before. Since the brain is attached to sense organs, the mind associated
> with the brain involves awareness alongside memory. Otherwise the mind of
> the brain is no different from the mind of the heart or the lungs or the
> pinky toes.
<< Ok, I see his and your point, and in a way you say here the same
thing like I above, but you see, written down like that, you ain 't gonna
get evolution. Every organ remerbers its own previous state(s), where as I
try to include ' new ' information into the genes/ organs in a way that by
birth of a new organism that information is already part of that organism.
> Waddington's model can certainly be applied to memes. The question is
> whether the epimemetic landscape is a function of genes or resonance. Are
> memes reducible to genes? Or are they the resonance of neural structures
> with previous, similar neural structures?
<< You see, you too stick to the view that genes control everything,
epimemetic landscapes must be a function of the genes. Why !?
Why can 't it be that epimemetic landscapes control in what way, to which
extend genes unfold themselves !?
You see, the genetic memory is expressed in the offspring, memetic memory
is somewhat lost. We do possess some ' memetical traits ', but those
are transformed, and getting transformed, they are explained by and into
cultural and social behaviors, where in my view we all seem to forget where
those came from in the first place. They were not mutated genes, they were
In some way we all seem to apply the notion that acquired knowledge
can 't get passed the genetic cell its boundary, we transform that notion
into a function of or by the genes, IMO that is.
( I am, because we are) I don 't know what anymore !!
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 2b29 : Mon Aug 06 2001 - 20:46:14 BST