Re: What do geneticists think of memes?
- From: "Anthony Cerrato" <tcerrato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:24:26 -0500 (EST)
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:domuhd$212d$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:dodh67$1k6u$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > "Lupus" <ihowllikeawolf@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:docukl$1c30$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > I gather the meme idea is not taken all that seriously
by (most)
> > > geneticists.
[snippage]
> > I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the issue of
"individuation".
> > I'm going to assume you mean something like this. Take
Dawkins'
> > example of the virgin birth meme (appropriate to the
season). Is
> > this one meme, or a meme complex?
> >
> > Certainly, the same kind of ambiguity appears in
genetics. Is some
> > altruistic behavior caused by a single gene or by a
group of genes?
> > But it turns out, in the math that population
geneticists have
> > developed, that the issue makes little difference to
many of the
> > results.
> >
> > But since we don't yet have a well developed
mathematical theory of
> > memetics, it is anyone's guess as to whether
individuation matters
> > there.
>
> I agree with the points made by all three responding
posters - especially
> the point that we don't yet know anything about the
physical embodyment
> of a meme. That point may be taken as a better answer to
the OP's worries
> about 'individuation'.
I agree. The direct problem IMO seems to be that the meme is
too broadly defined--well actually, there is no precise
widely accepted definition of a meme at all, is there? (Let
alone, a "well-defined" one.) This is exactly the position
Mendel was in at the beginning of his heritability studies.
To my knowledge, there is not only no accepted physical
_unit_ for memes, there is no general agreement on what
should be included conceptually
under the rubric of "meme."
As has been pointed out, there is also the question of
delineating between memes and meme complexes in a clear-cut
and utilitarian way! Clear boundaries are needed for such
definitions. Until we have real-world useful definitions of
these things, just as were zeroed in on for the gene, and we
ultimately find the right form of the memetic "DNA," there
is little more than can be done other than mutter
qualitative mumblings on how memes could and should work.
BTW, I also think the general meme concept is extremely
important--after all, even poorly defined, it is already an
important leg of the new science of Sociobiology. It also
seems to me that almost everything ever done in behavioral
science can be directly related and interpreted in an
appropriate language of memes (semantics willing!) :)
....tonyC
> On the other hand, I would point out that the science of
classical
> genetics was already fully mature before we really
understood the
> physical embodyment of genes - perhaps memetics can make
similar
> advances without first nailing down just how memes work
mechanically.
>
> Hmmm. So what organism should serve as the model for
memetics research
> instead of Pisum, Drosophila, and Neurospora? Something
that gives the
> researcher full control of memetic transmission.
>
> When some later day Sturtevant publishes the first
'memetic map', then
> serious scientists will begin to take notice.
>
>
.
- References:
- Re: What do geneticists think of memes?
- From: Perplexed in Peoria
- Re: What do geneticists think of memes?
- From: Perplexed in Peoria
- Re: What do geneticists think of memes?
- Prev by Date: Re: Which Came First
- Next by Date: Re: Human external and internal ecology
- Previous by thread: Re: What do geneticists think of memes?
- Next by thread: Re: What do geneticists think of memes?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
