Hi Kenneth and all,
KENNETH:
< A correspondent of me, Doug Klimesh, USA,
> www.provide.net/~dougklim/Memedna.htm
>
> wrote in an article called " Meme Storage in DNA " that Stuart
Hameroff,
> proposes that the microtubukes making up the cytoskeleton of basically
> every living cell in addition to providing the structure and shape of
the
> cell and the means of intracellular transport also function as
electrical
> information
> processors. So when a cell devides, it may pass on genetic information
> not just in DNA but also in the form of microtubules, which are
integral
> in cell dividsion mechanics.
>
> I replied,
> DNA (genes) may not just pass on their genetic information but also
> (in the form of microtubules ? ) our neurological (memetic)
evolutionary
> driven re- representations of our role in society. . . .
My own view is that the DNA does *not* carry all the information for
life.
The DNA can only operate in the configuration of a living cell, where
the arrangments of microtubules, membranes and transient state of
hundreds of metabolites all form a part of that configuration.
Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that the configuration for
life stops within the organism - rather, it can be considered to extend
outside into the ecosystem/environment.
This latter "external" part of the configuration of life is the
interesting part of memetics. I assume that in a traditional biological
sense, man has changed little over the past several hundred thousand
years. Given pieces of ancient and modern human tissue, I doubt that any
scientists say which is which, based on DNA or any other chemical tests
(except for the obvious effects of tissue ageing). Modern man differs
from ancient man not at this level, but at the level of all the things
he has learned. In other words, if you want to find where "Hamlet" or
"Macbeth" come from, you won't find them in Shakespeare's DNA.
Furthermore, now that those dramatic patterns of value have come into
mankind's possession, they are passed on to future generations surely as
any gene.
KENNETH
>In other words, our neurological representation of being a teacher and/
> or our will/ our need to be a teacher or the pressure to become one,
> transformed themselves from gained/ acquired ( Lamarck) preferences
> to inborn/ inbedded criteria ( Darwin)_ which transposed themsleves
into
> the proximity of our genetic reproductionpattern.
I understand Lemarck vs. Darwin rather differently. Both assumed
that traits were acquired, then passed on by some mechanism of
inheritance. The difference is that Lemarck proposed that the traits
were first acquired DELIBERATELY to overcome a problem (e.g. giraffes
stretching for high leaves), while Darwin proposed that traits were
acquired ACCIDENTALLY but only the useful ones selected. I'm starting
to think
that this difference may be a red herring, one more facet of the whole
"Causality" issue.
KENNETH
>My idea is, if memes are blocks of info and they
>are selfish likegenes they
> will do everything to propagate themselves [snip].
Let me add that the combination of meme + ENVIRONMENT must propagate. In
that respect, memes are like any other pattern. Patterns can only
persist if their propagation is encouraged (a tautology).
> Steele evokes something called " an expression site for the gene "
and I
> agree_ there is something spatial about how a gene exists, and in that
> space-
> time continium there has to be the meme((tic) info).
>
> Last night, writing this stuff as an answer to your question I had a
> wonderful
> thought...
>
> What if the meme is the spatial expression of the gene 's content !?
Genes and memes operate within the context of an overall environment,
while themselves contributing to that environment. Thus, I would amend
your sentence to say that memes and genes are PART of the "spatial
expression" (environment) for themselves and each other.
> If this idea is valid, then each gene has to be its own private
spatial
> expres-
> sion site, what we should call the (a) proto- meme, a somatic inprint,
> a epigenetic rule, a mental state, a mental pattern.[snip]
Here I disagree - each gene and meme would operate in the same spatial
expression site.
> It would be " planned " , it would be Lamarckian, it would explain why
> a child is not a cheat of white paper...
I don't see why this is necessarily Lemarckian. Rather than "white
paper", let's say "unprogrammed", while remembering that even an
unprogrammed computer has lots of patterns wired into the hardware and
coded into the "firmware", in fact it is "preprogrammed to be programmed
and reprogrammed". A newborn child may be similar, with a remarkable
added capacity for self-programming.
Kenneth, I hope that this helps. As I said before, I am no memeticist,
so will be very interested in your reaction.
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:48 BST