RE: playing at suicide

From: Philip Jonkers (
Date: Sun Jan 13 2002 - 05:53:19 GMT

  • Next message: Grant Callaghan: "Re: Knowledge, Memes and Sensory Perception"

    Received: by id FAA15005 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 05:57:15 GMT
    Message-Id: <>
    Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:53:19 -0500
    From: "Philip Jonkers" <>
    Subject: RE: playing at suicide
    Precedence: bulk

    >When I look at culture, both here and abroad, it
    doesn't seem to work that
    >way. The force of nature and the force of culture
    often seem to work
    >against each other and I want to know why.

    In the course of time, human culture has evolved
    to such extent that it finds itself almost detached
    from its original roots to enhance survival.
    Nowadays, memes work sometimes pro, sometimes contra
    genes. Culture operates virtually independent from
    biology mainly because it evolves much faster.
    By its speedy rate of evolution there's no reason why
    memes should be obey biology, i.e. act pro-gene.
    Memes almost lead a life of their own as genes
    are to inert to keep similar pace with them.
    In humans, however, the co-evolution between genes
    and memes will persist as they share the same turf:
    the brain. Things will change I predict with the
    fearfully anticipated advent of the smart AI

    >What is it about culture that
    >gives it the power to change the world and override
    the laws of nature?

    I hope you are referring to the invasive impact of
    culture on (human) biology for example in the form
    of genetic engineering because striclty speaking
    there are yet examples to be found of memes breaking
    any laws of nature.


    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 : Sun Jan 13 2002 - 06:04:05 GMT