Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA27432 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Thu, 17 Jan 2002 01:18:59 GMT Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:14:32 -0800 Message-Id: <200201170114.g0H1EWS28956@mail14.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116) X-Originating-Ip: [18.104.22.168] From: "Joe Dees" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Do all memes die out or evolve? I think not. Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
> "Scott Chase" <email@example.com> firstname.lastname@example.org Re: Do all memes die out or evolve? I think not.Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:27:36 -0500
>>From: "Dace" <email@example.com>
>>Subject: Re: Do all memes die out or evolve? I think not.
>>Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:11:06 -0800
>> > I think that some memes reach an optimized limit state that nevertheless
>> > retains their functionality and usefulness. For instance, I do not see
>> > the multiplication tables either dying out or evolving.
>>Are you backing off from your assertion that memetics is the evolutionary
>>theory of meaning?
>>Just because memes are liable to arrive at an optimal state doesn't mean
>>they aren't still products of evolution. The same thing occurs in the
>>natural environment all the time. Organisms get to a certain point where
>>they fit their ecosystem perfectly.
>I didn't realize evolution was about perfection. Are you sure you haven't
>conflated evolution with some outdated natural theological view long
>replaced by Darwin's evolution via selection?
>There are constraints (eg- historically channeling baggage) which impede
>reaching perfection, whatever "perfection" may be.
>How's your lower back feeling? Ever have appendicitis? It would be perfect
>if humans didn't need to get their "wisdom" teeth removed.
>Then the ecosystem gets washed away, and only those that are able to further
>evolve will survive. In the event of a general breakdown of civilization,
>multiplication tables would have little use and might disappear. The other
>possibility is a genetically engineered leap in intelligence that could
>render multiplication tables unnecessary. In that case, if they evolved
>into much greater complexity, then they might be useful again and would
>There's the difference between stabilizing selection which would keep a
>feature of a population at a satisfactory (ie- just getting by) state within
>a stable ecological context and directional selection which takes the
>population toward a different state "better" for a different ecological
>context when this context has itself changed, along with the playing field.
Then the question remains; how can the periodic table or the multiplication table be improved? I see no way for this to happen. Evolution neither mandates nor forbids optimization.
>Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>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)
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
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 Jan 17 2002 - 01:32:15 GMT