| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tim Tyler
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject: Memetic takeover |
 |
|
Hi! I've put together a video of me - discussing the idea of a
"memetic takeover" - and put it on YouTube:
http://alife.co.uk/essays/memetic_takeover/
Enjoy,
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Alpha
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject: Re: Memetic takeover |
|
|
On Oct 29, 6:29 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Hi! I've put together a video of me - discussing the idea of a
"memetic takeover" - and put it on YouTube:
http://alife.co.uk/essays/memetic_takeover/
Enjoy,
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
|
More nonsense.
You say: "We can get insight into this process by observing recent
technological evolution." which bears little or no relation to
autopoietic organisms evolving by natural experiment in the natural
world. Talks about comapring apples and pieces of green wood!
And: "It now appears that the modern memetic takeover will be
accompanied by a phenotypic takeover as well. 20 amino acids are no
more an optimal universal constructor than 4 base pairs are an optimal
universal storage medium."
It appears that way to irrational clueless individuals that do not
realize that memes are dependent on facilities like humans to advance
into cultural contexts or any context for that matter. There is no
sense in which they will take over phenotypic instantiations of humans
or anything else. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Alpha
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject: Re: Memetic takeover |
|
|
On Oct 29, 7:32 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Alpha wrote:
You say: "We can get insight into this process by observing recent
technological evolution." which bears little or no relation to
autopoietic organisms evolving by natural experiment in the natural
world.
Yes it does. Memes are inherited material that is not made out of DNA.
Memetic change is part of biological evolution, according to the
standard definition of evolution - which makes no reference to the
medium of inheritance.
As such it shares many properties with DNA evolution: for example,
the concepts of adaptation, genotype, drift, phenotype, gene, parasite,
mutualist, predator, mutation, recombination, neutrality, selection
and gradualism all apply.
That certainly does not constitute "little or no relation".
|
Incorrect. Wiki says: "evolution is the process of change in the
inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to
the next. "
Memes are not part of biological evolution as you claim as memes are
not biological organisms and do not transmit via DNA (despite what
Evolutionary Psychologists want to be the case).
That is not to say that memes do not evolve by similar mechnisms
though; just that they are not biologically based as you claim.
| Quote: |
And: "It now appears that the modern memetic takeover will be
accompanied by a phenotypic takeover as well. 20 amino acids are no
more an optimal universal constructor than 4 base pairs are an optimal
universal storage medium."
It appears that way to irrational clueless individuals that do not
realize that memes are dependent on facilities like humans to advance
into cultural contexts or any context for that matter.
The new replicators are dependent on humans *today*. As I point out,
the memes are busy constructing robots and synthetic intelligence -
|
Memes do nothing; they are ideas only and ideas do not construct
anything. They are merely descriptive "vehicles" to be used by humans
and their artifices (computers etc.) to accomplish goals that humans
designate. Memes are dead and have no intentionality.
| Quote: |
which will facilitate the ending of this deplorable (from the memes'
POV, of course!) situation.
There is no sense in which they will take over phenotypic instantiations
> of humans or anything else.
I was aware of your opinion already - but thanks for clarifying it.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Alpha
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject: Re: Memetic takeover |
|
|
On Oct 29, 8:14 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Alpha wrote:
You say: "We can get insight into this process by observing recent
technological evolution." which bears little or no relation to
autopoietic organisms evolving by natural experiment in the natural
world. Talks about comapring apples and pieces of green wood!
If you want an example from DNA-based evolution, consider the
case of marsupials in South America. These did not evolve into
the placental mammals that now live there - though people once
thought that they did. Rather they were competitively displaced
by invading placentals, which evolved elsewhere, and then invaded
via the newly-formed American land bridge in Mexico.
We can see much the same thing happening today in Australia,
despite its island status.
|
Has nothing to do with technological evolution; you miss the point
repeatedly. marsupials are autopoietic organisms and evolution per se
deals with such. Not so tech evo.
But I understand your point about there being similar mechanisms,
which is I guess your main point. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Alpha
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject: Re: Memetic takeover |
|
|
On Oct 29, 8:48 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Alpha wrote:
On Oct 29, 7:32 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Alpha wrote:
You say: "We can get insight into this process by observing recent
technological evolution." which bears little or no relation to
autopoietic organisms evolving by natural experiment in the natural
world.
Yes it does. Memes are inherited material that is not made out of DNA.
Memetic change is part of biological evolution, according to the
standard definition of evolution - which makes no reference to the
medium of inheritance.
As such it shares many properties with DNA evolution: for example,
the concepts of adaptation, genotype, drift, phenotype, gene, parasite,
mutualist, predator, mutation, recombination, neutrality, selection
and gradualism all apply.
That certainly does not constitute "little or no relation".
Incorrect. Wiki says: "evolution is the process of change in the
inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to
the next. "
Uh huh. Note that it doesn't specify the medium of inheritance
be DNA. If you inherit your surname, hairstyle, circumsised
penis and choice of beer from your pop, then then those still
count as "inherited traits".
Memes are not part of biological evolution as you claim [...]
Yes they are. Check again with the definition.
Here's how one textbook explains it:
``In short, humans have two unique hereditary systems.
One is the genetic system that transfers biological
information from biological parent to offspring
in the form of genes and chromosomes. The other
is the extragenetic system that transfers cultural
information from speaker to listener, from writer
to reader, from performer to spectator, and forms
our cultural heritage.''
- Evolution, Strickberger, 1996.
Of course, DNA and memes also co-evolve. E.g.: habitually drink milk
for very long and your genes will adapt via the Baldwin effect.
as memes are not biological organisms [...]
The idea is that memes are like genes. Genes are not
"biological organisms" either - but they are a means of
inheritance used by them.
That is not to say that memes do not evolve by similar mechnisms
though; just that they are not biologically based as you claim.
Memes are a really just a form of inheritance not based on DNA.
They are as "biological" as anything else in biology.
|
No they are not <sigh>
| Quote: |
The new replicators are dependent on humans *today*. As I point out,
the memes are busy constructing robots and synthetic intelligence -
Memes do nothing; they are ideas only and ideas do not construct
anything.
So: they are exacly like genes in that respect, then?
|
No, genes are by def. a biological instantiation that when part of a
process of explication, produce biolgical organisms.
| Quote: |
They are merely descriptive "vehicles" to be used by humans
and their artifices (computers etc.) to accomplish goals that humans
designate.
"Vehicles"? Richard Dawkins would have a fit.
|
That is a good thing. ;^)
| Quote: |
Memes are dead and have no intentionality.
So: they are exacly like genes in that respect, then
|
Genes are part of an autopoietic organsims, inseparable from such in
biological evolution. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Alpha
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject: Re: Memetic takeover |
|
|
On Oct 29, 8:53 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Alpha wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:14 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Alpha wrote:
You say: "We can get insight into this process by observing recent
technological evolution." which bears little or no relation to
autopoietic organisms evolving by natural experiment in the natural
world. Talks about comapring apples and pieces of green wood!
If you want an example from DNA-based evolution, consider the
case of marsupials in South America. These did not evolve into
the placental mammals that now live there - though people once
thought that they did. Rather they were competitively displaced
by invading placentals, which evolved elsewhere, and then invaded
via the newly-formed American land bridge in Mexico.
We can see much the same thing happening today in Australia,
despite its island status.
Has nothing to do with technological evolution; you miss the point
repeatedly. marsupials are autopoietic organisms and evolution per se
deals with such. Not so tech evo.
To recap, you criticised me for providing examples of technological
evolution to illustrate an issue that arose from a discussion
of DNA-based evolution.
After I provided examples of DNA-based evolution that illustrate
the same point, I did not expect to then be criticised for
not providing examples from technological evolution.
|
I guess you missed the point then. No problem. Ty again: I already
said that there are similarities *in mechanism *types* (like mutation
etc.), but there are also differences. Evolution proceeds to produce
increasingly *adaptational efficacies* as my *revision* of the
overcomingbias quote indicates. (e.g., the quote *there* is NOT
correct as stated! Cosmides and Tooby are incorrect in their
supposition that adaptations (like memes) are what constitute
evolutionary affect. Buller's point is that it is *adaptational*
propensity that increases!!) That is why I put "adaptational " in
place of "adaptations", which thence renders thee statement correct.
This inew revised statement then, s not the case for memes within a
technologically-evolutionary milieu, as they have no adapatational (as
opposed to specific adaptions) propensity. Thence the difference. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Alpha
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:33 pm Post subject: Re: Memetic takeover |
|
|
On Oct 29, 11:28 am, Alpha <omegazero2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Oct 29, 8:53 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Alpha wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:14 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Alpha wrote:
You say: "We can get insight into this process by observing recent
technological evolution." which bears little or no relation to
autopoietic organisms evolving by natural experiment in the natural
world. Talks about comapring apples and pieces of green wood!
If you want an example from DNA-based evolution, consider the
case of marsupials in South America. These did not evolve into
the placental mammals that now live there - though people once
thought that they did. Rather they were competitively displaced
by invading placentals, which evolved elsewhere, and then invaded
via the newly-formed American land bridge in Mexico.
We can see much the same thing happening today in Australia,
despite its island status.
Has nothing to do with technological evolution; you miss the point
repeatedly. marsupials are autopoietic organisms and evolution per se
deals with such. Not so tech evo.
To recap, you criticised me for providing examples of technological
evolution to illustrate an issue that arose from a discussion
of DNA-based evolution.
After I provided examples of DNA-based evolution that illustrate
the same point, I did not expect to then be criticised for
not providing examples from technological evolution.
I guess you missed the point then. No problem. Ty again: I already
said that there are similarities *in mechanism *types* (like mutation
etc.), but there are also differences. Evolution proceeds to produce
increasingly *adaptational efficacies* as my *revision* of the
overcomingbias quote indicates. (e.g., the quote *there* is NOT
correct as stated! Cosmides and Tooby are incorrect in their
supposition that adaptations (like memes) are what constitute
evolutionary affect. Buller's point is that it is *adaptational*
propensity that increases!!) That is why I put "adaptational " in
place of "adaptations", which thence renders thee statement correct.
This inew revised statement then, s not the case for memes within a
technologically-evolutionary milieu, as they have no adapatational (as
opposed to specific adaptions) propensity. Thence the difference.
|
PS: perhaps you do not understand the difference between "adaptation"
and "adaptational". There is a world of difference (and that is part
of the difference between genes and memes). I suggest Adapting Minds
by Buller as an antidote to Cosmides and Tooby's idiocy. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Alpha
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: Memetic takeover |
|
|
On Oct 29, 11:34 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Alpha wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:48 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Alpha wrote:
Memes do nothing; they are ideas only and ideas do not construct
anything.
So: they are exacly like genes in that respect, then?
No, genes are by def. a biological instantiation that when part of a
process of explication, produce biolgical organisms.
Memes too code for adapted entities that take in material resources, and
use them to produce more copies of the memes.
Consider Linux, for example. The memes are its source code, and
its phenotype consists of the manifestation of Linux in cell phones,
STBs, computers, etc all over the planet - the performance of which
feeds back and helps perpetuate the Linux memes.
Memes have associated active phenotypes just as much as genes do.
|
See my other reply on the difference between adaptations and
adaptational!
| Quote: | --
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Alpha
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:19 pm Post subject: Re: Memetic takeover |
|
|
On Oct 29, 11:45 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Alpha wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:53 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Alpha wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:14 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Alpha wrote:
You say: "We can get insight into this process by observing recent
technological evolution." which bears little or no relation to
autopoietic organisms evolving by natural experiment in the natural
world. Talks about comapring apples and pieces of green wood!
If you want an example from DNA-based evolution, consider the
case of marsupials in South America. [...]
Has nothing to do with technological evolution; you miss the point
repeatedly. marsupials are autopoietic organisms and evolution per se
deals with such. Not so tech evo.
To recap, you criticised me for providing examples of technological
evolution to illustrate an issue that arose from a discussion
of DNA-based evolution.
After I provided examples of DNA-based evolution that illustrate
the same point, I did not expect to then be criticised for
not providing examples from technological evolution.
I guess you missed the point then. No problem. Ty again: I already
said that there are similarities *in mechanism *types* (like mutation
etc.), but there are also differences.
Sure. That is obvious, and I never claimed otherwise.
|
OK - well then NP!
| Quote: | --
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tim Tyler
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:32 pm Post subject: Re: Memetic takeover |
|
|
Alpha wrote:
| Quote: | You say: "We can get insight into this process by observing recent
technological evolution." which bears little or no relation to
autopoietic organisms evolving by natural experiment in the natural
world.
|
Yes it does. Memes are inherited material that is not made out of DNA.
Memetic change is part of biological evolution, according to the
standard definition of evolution - which makes no reference to the
medium of inheritance.
As such it shares many properties with DNA evolution: for example,
the concepts of adaptation, genotype, drift, phenotype, gene, parasite,
mutualist, predator, mutation, recombination, neutrality, selection
and gradualism all apply.
That certainly does not constitute "little or no relation".
| Quote: | And: "It now appears that the modern memetic takeover will be
accompanied by a phenotypic takeover as well. 20 amino acids are no
more an optimal universal constructor than 4 base pairs are an optimal
universal storage medium."
It appears that way to irrational clueless individuals that do not
realize that memes are dependent on facilities like humans to advance
into cultural contexts or any context for that matter.
|
The new replicators are dependent on humans *today*. As I point out,
the memes are busy constructing robots and synthetic intelligence -
which will facilitate the ending of this deplorable (from the memes'
POV, of course!) situation.
| Quote: | There is no sense in which they will take over phenotypic instantiations
of humans or anything else.
|
I was aware of your opinion already - but thanks for clarifying it.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tim Tyler
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:14 pm Post subject: Re: Memetic takeover |
|
|
Alpha wrote:
| Quote: | You say: "We can get insight into this process by observing recent
technological evolution." which bears little or no relation to
autopoietic organisms evolving by natural experiment in the natural
world. Talks about comapring apples and pieces of green wood!
|
If you want an example from DNA-based evolution, consider the
case of marsupials in South America. These did not evolve into
the placental mammals that now live there - though people once
thought that they did. Rather they were competitively displaced
by invading placentals, which evolved elsewhere, and then invaded
via the newly-formed American land bridge in Mexico.
We can see much the same thing happening today in Australia,
despite its island status.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tim Tyler
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:48 pm Post subject: Re: Memetic takeover |
|
|
Alpha wrote:
| Quote: | On Oct 29, 7:32 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Alpha wrote:
You say: "We can get insight into this process by observing recent
technological evolution." which bears little or no relation to
autopoietic organisms evolving by natural experiment in the natural
world.
Yes it does. Memes are inherited material that is not made out of DNA.
Memetic change is part of biological evolution, according to the
standard definition of evolution - which makes no reference to the
medium of inheritance.
As such it shares many properties with DNA evolution: for example,
the concepts of adaptation, genotype, drift, phenotype, gene, parasite,
mutualist, predator, mutation, recombination, neutrality, selection
and gradualism all apply.
That certainly does not constitute "little or no relation".
Incorrect. Wiki says: "evolution is the process of change in the
inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to
the next. "
|
Uh huh. Note that it doesn't specify the medium of inheritance
be DNA. If you inherit your surname, hairstyle, circumsised
penis and choice of beer from your pop, then then those still
count as "inherited traits".
| Quote: | Memes are not part of biological evolution as you claim [...]
|
Yes they are. Check again with the definition.
Here's how one textbook explains it:
``In short, humans have two unique hereditary systems.
One is the genetic system that transfers biological
information from biological parent to offspring
in the form of genes and chromosomes. The other
is the extragenetic system that transfers cultural
information from speaker to listener, from writer
to reader, from performer to spectator, and forms
our cultural heritage.''
- Evolution, Strickberger, 1996.
Of course, DNA and memes also co-evolve. E.g.: habitually drink milk
for very long and your genes will adapt via the Baldwin effect.
| Quote: | as memes are not biological organisms [...]
|
The idea is that memes are like genes. Genes are not
"biological organisms" either - but they are a means of
inheritance used by them.
| Quote: | That is not to say that memes do not evolve by similar mechnisms
though; just that they are not biologically based as you claim.
|
Memes are a really just a form of inheritance not based on DNA.
They are as "biological" as anything else in biology.
| Quote: | The new replicators are dependent on humans *today*. As I point out,
the memes are busy constructing robots and synthetic intelligence -
Memes do nothing; they are ideas only and ideas do not construct
anything.
|
So: they are exacly like genes in that respect, then?
| Quote: | They are merely descriptive "vehicles" to be used by humans
and their artifices (computers etc.) to accomplish goals that humans
designate.
|
"Vehicles"? Richard Dawkins would have a fit.
| Quote: | Memes are dead and have no intentionality.
|
So: they are exacly like genes in that respect, then
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tim Tyler
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject: Re: Memetic takeover |
|
|
Alpha wrote:
| Quote: | On Oct 29, 8:14 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Alpha wrote:
You say: "We can get insight into this process by observing recent
technological evolution." which bears little or no relation to
autopoietic organisms evolving by natural experiment in the natural
world. Talks about comapring apples and pieces of green wood!
If you want an example from DNA-based evolution, consider the
case of marsupials in South America. These did not evolve into
the placental mammals that now live there - though people once
thought that they did. Rather they were competitively displaced
by invading placentals, which evolved elsewhere, and then invaded
via the newly-formed American land bridge in Mexico.
We can see much the same thing happening today in Australia,
despite its island status.
Has nothing to do with technological evolution; you miss the point
repeatedly. marsupials are autopoietic organisms and evolution per se
deals with such. Not so tech evo.
|
To recap, you criticised me for providing examples of technological
evolution to illustrate an issue that arose from a discussion
of DNA-based evolution.
After I provided examples of DNA-based evolution that illustrate
the same point, I did not expect to then be criticised for
not providing examples from technological evolution.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tim Tyler
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:34 pm Post subject: Re: Memetic takeover |
|
|
Alpha wrote:
| Quote: | On Oct 29, 8:48 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Alpha wrote:
Memes do nothing; they are ideas only and ideas do not construct
anything.
So: they are exacly like genes in that respect, then?
No, genes are by def. a biological instantiation that when part of a
process of explication, produce biolgical organisms.
|
Memes too code for adapted entities that take in material resources, and
use them to produce more copies of the memes.
Consider Linux, for example. The memes are its source code, and
its phenotype consists of the manifestation of Linux in cell phones,
STBs, computers, etc all over the planet - the performance of which
feeds back and helps perpetuate the Linux memes.
Memes have associated active phenotypes just as much as genes do.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tim Tyler
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:45 pm Post subject: Re: Memetic takeover |
|
|
Alpha wrote:
| Quote: | On Oct 29, 8:53 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Alpha wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:14 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Alpha wrote:
You say: "We can get insight into this process by observing recent
technological evolution." which bears little or no relation to
autopoietic organisms evolving by natural experiment in the natural
world. Talks about comapring apples and pieces of green wood!
If you want an example from DNA-based evolution, consider the
case of marsupials in South America. [...]
Has nothing to do with technological evolution; you miss the point
repeatedly. marsupials are autopoietic organisms and evolution per se
deals with such. Not so tech evo.
To recap, you criticised me for providing examples of technological
evolution to illustrate an issue that arose from a discussion
of DNA-based evolution.
After I provided examples of DNA-based evolution that illustrate
the same point, I did not expect to then be criticised for
not providing examples from technological evolution.
I guess you missed the point then. No problem. Ty again: I already
said that there are similarities *in mechanism *types* (like mutation
etc.), but there are also differences.
|
Sure. That is obvious, and I never claimed otherwise.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
