Re: Definition please

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Thu Dec 13 2001 - 21:05:50 GMT

  • Next message: John Wilkins: "Re: Wilkins on the meme:engram relation"

    Received: by id VAA19821 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 21:05:38 GMT
    Message-ID: <001101c1841a$0c6bebe0$aa02bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: Definition please
    Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 22:05:50 +0100
    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
    Precedence: bulk

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Wade T. Smith <>

    > >Now you are saying that Lamarckism equals creativity !?
    > Design is lamarckian- although I'd prefer to say that lamarckianism uses
    > design as a force, which is its mistake.
    > Design is goal oriented. Evolution is blind to the future.
    > Design involves patterns. Evolution is chaotic.

    Hi Wade,

    Like I said in an earlier post you can round this up by calculating
    into your equations.
    What follows is highly hypothetical.
    The evolution of any aspect of culture is the sum of 2 effects_A/ the amount
    of individuals, which were infected by the change at one point in time, and
    B/ to the amounts of interactions and their effects due to what kind of
    taken by those individuals at that particular moment in time.

    The problem lies NOT in how we can calculate the number of people
    infected, I suppose we can do that, more preciser will be needed though,
    to calculate the " effect " of all interactions possible.
    But there you have a problem, Dawinian natural selection selects for the
    best, the better, the more fit, the fittest. All kinds of possible effects/
    comes will have disapeared.
    Two lines emerge, 1_ natural selection which states that certain lines will
    eventually reach their end, whatever that might be. Nature " prefers " such
    lines above others.
    2_ an obscur system by which nature have no preference for what begins
    and how it will end.

    Such a split- like look at things has constructive aspects, now you can
    calculate a difference between the amount of useful info which is used in
    order to select and how big the amount of info is which leaks away in
    order to give sufficient support for the selection process itself.
    Such an ( cultural/ social !?) entropy increases in the case you let the
    process of natural selection loose on the second_ more and more things
    will leak away_ selection pressures will increase all the time.
    Such an entropy increase acts as an " arrow of time " ( Eddington), and
    in you case, Wade, is that the future !

    Don 't misunderstand me, this is just a mindgame.
    I could be wrong all the way !



    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 : Thu Dec 13 2001 - 21:25:33 GMT