Re: What do geneticists think of memes?
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:24:20 -0500 (EST)
"Anon." <bob.ohara@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: What do geneticists think of memes?
> I'll just add a fourth to this:
> 4. There is no good objective definition of a meme. For genes the
> definitions are good enough that, even if the concept is fuzzy around
> the edges, we can still objectively identify most genes as genes (i.e.
> any reasonable and well informed person can do it). We can then work
> with this object, and (for example) transfer it into another organism.
> For memes, it's much more difficult to identify a meme as a meme, rather
> than a part of a meme or several memes (e.g. is religion a meme, or a
> collection?). This makes it much more difficult to work with as a
> concept: if you can't identify a meme, you can't manipulate it, or
> develop a mathematical model for how it behaves.
JE:-
Model genes, like model memes, simply delete all FITNESS epistatic effects.
Not a single trait empirically exists, i.e. has been documented within
nature, that is just the simple sum of the fitness of each gene or each meme
that codes for it. The really big limitation to BOTH concepts is that each
meme, like each gene, remains 100% dependent on, i.e. 100% dependently
selectable on exactly *WHAT* biological entity within NATURE?
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: What do geneticists think of memes?
- From: Peter F
- Re: What do geneticists think of memes?
- Prev by Date: Re: Announcing A New Unifying Principle of the Evolutionary
- Next by Date: Re: Shall we get rid of our junk?
- Previous by thread: Re: What do geneticists think of memes?
- Next by thread: Re: What do geneticists think of memes?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|