>Is it really that different? Can't a gene be thought of as information
>encoded chemically?
Yes, it can also be thought of as having intentionality and behaving
"selfishly" as well. Both are useful at a certian level of description.
And both are entirely useless when talking about the underlying mechanisms
responsible.
DNA is code for a series of chemical baths that wash the developing embryo,
perturbing its development along a given path. I see no memetic equivilent
to this process.
>The criteria is: does the information replicate and survive.
Yes. But why does that presuppose that it will use the same mechanisms
as a biological replicator in order to do it? Does a Xerox machine and womb
work in the same way?
DNA builds structures which are able to produce copies of itself. Do you
believe that memes create brains? I think not.
>I can find all kinds of similarities. Here are some examples:
>1. The gene complex: a gene "cooperates" with other genes in an animal
>because they all depend the survival of the same initial egg.
You're anthropomorphising a little too much here to make the analogy useful.
Break it down to what _actually_ happens in selection and you might find
that your analogy breaks down with it.
>Meme complex: In a corporation a meme "cooperates" with other memes
>because their mutual survival depends on the corporations profitability.
>2. Evolution is to the gene as Progress is to the meme.
No. Evolution is to the gene as _evolution_ is to the meme. "Evolution" is
the observation that natural selection favors structures that are well
suited to their environment. "Progress" is the man-made belief that such
adaption is necessarily heading somewhere over time. A sort of faith. The
concept of "progess" has no place in evolutionary theory.
>3.A deadly virus mutates to a less dangerous virus because natural
>selection favors it.
Please show me a few cases of this. I know of none. A deadly virus has
evolved to be deadly precisely _because_ natural selection favored it.
Unless the environment radically changes, there is no need for the virus to
adapt to be any less lethal.
> An unprofitable meme mutates to a less expensive meme because the
>marketplace favors it.
> I could go on but I hope you get the picture here:
All I get is a picture of several weak analogies trying to support another
weak analogy.
"_What if_ memes and genes employ different mechanisms for replication?"
Just roll that question around in your brain for a while and see what it
produces.
Or are you already too dogmaticly bound to the fairly recent (only 20-some
years old now) meme/gene analogy to allow you to entertain other
possiblities as well?
-Prof. Tim