>Remember, genes are invisible too. One of the most annoying problems for
neo-Darwinians is that so many people misunderstand the modern synthesis.
That is, genes are far too often regarded as simply 'chunks of DNA'. This
simply ain't so.
>
>A gene is a *relationship* between a chunk of DNA and a behavioural trait.
DNA exists in the physical world, and behavioural traits, inasmuch as we
identify them so, exist in the physical world. But a gene does not - a gene
is an identification of a particular relationship; an intentional object. We
talk about what genes are 'for'.
>
>Similarly, memes are invisible. They should not be simply equated with
chunks of 'brain code'. Memes are a *relationship* between brain code and
instances of culture. Cultural instances (written words, pictures,
artefacts, etc.) are the 'DNA' of memetics. Brain code is analogous to a
phenotypal behavioural trait - i.e. the same cultural instances tend to
produce similar types of brain code in different individuals, just as the
same genes tend to produce similar types of behavioural traits in different
individuals. <<<
Well said. But we should remember that although the term "meme" was coined
in a book about genes, we have no real basis for an analogy between genes
and memes, as such. Although both evolve over time, the mechanisms involved
may be entirely different.
We could just as easily be walking down one of Wilson's wrong paths by
looking for the memotypes/phenotypes of something that is only akin to genes
by metaphor, not by observation.
-Prof. Tim