Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA13885 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Mon, 4 Feb 2002 15:32:50 GMT Message-ID: <001c01c1ad91$76df66a0$1007bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <email@example.com> Subject: Selfish memes ? Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:33:57 +0100 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0019_01C1AD99.BE731860" 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: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Just an observation of my part, concerning the source, Genes and Deter-
minism, Wade Smith linked us on, on Thursday 24/ 01/ 2002
I could be wrong, but....
Genes are selfish_ they protect their own interest. DNA is selfish, it is
looking after its own interests !
Memes are selfish and the memetic isomorphism is selfish, it is looking
after its own interests !
But, that would be just a way of saying that in service of those memes,
oganisms ( we humans) may act selfish ( but we should anything than
this), but the memes themselves would be anything than selfish !
That is what Dawkins meant, he said.
Ok, I can live with that !
But on the other hand, I can 't withdraw the impression that he ( Dawkins)
catched himself on a fault and tried to correct it.
That would be his prerogative, and who am I, though !
But, the damage has been done.
IMO, if you hold on to the view that genes/ memes were to be selfish, in
the sense that the entities themselves would be, all what they should do/
produce/ set/... would bear the ghost of Lamarck, not Darwin.
Their selfish- would- be should in a sense be directed; giving motive and
therefor itself a goal.
IMO, he ( Dawkins) tried to contradict this in saying that not the genes/
memes but the behavior which resulted out of their interactions could give
rise to selfishness. A lovely way to fit the tautology with the expected
ideas/ thoughts and conclusions of the Darwinian world.
Such notion has been raised before.
Why would we dismiss the fact that memes can been seen everywhere
one looks, like Wade mentioned, and NOT dismiss that fact within Dar-
What is so scientific about the idea that Dawinism may be seen every-
where one looks !?
Why can 't Darwinism be made out of the same idiocy than seeing memes
Where do we draw the line !?
Selfishness IMO, is not only egoism expressed like in the human term,
but selfishness can take on many forms.
Why can 't altruistic behavior in the extreme not be a case of selfishness !?
If each meme has its own specific niche in the no÷sphere and makes that
other memes works for them in service to organise ways along which they
can propagate and replicate themselves, without even carin' a damn for the
consequenties, the other memes, their hosts or themselves,... what could
be more selfish than such an attitude !?
Memes are like people, they are split beings:- they want to do what they want
and they want to be part of everything.
If memes, were NOT to be selfish, in any possible way expressed, they
won 't survive the competition. To be good in survival you have to be sel-
fish_ the intrinsic tendency of memes is to develop their ' own ' but diffe-
rent, meaningful niche in the world of information.
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 Feb 04 2002 - 15:41:40 GMT