How about new innovations giving birth to new corporations? The wash
here is the background of ideas that make the development of a new one
possible. The person starting the new corporation may quite his job with
a corporation and use the memes he learned there to get the new
corporation started.
>
> >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?
Even among living things the strategy differs greatly. The niche the
information finds itself replicating in, whether a Xerox machine or a
womb only alters its particular way of surviving
>
> DNA builds structures which are able to produce copies of itself. Do you
> believe that memes create brains? I think not.
True but did DNA create the atoms of which it is composed? Of course the
background against which memes occur is conditional but DNA has certain
background conditions for it to exist too. Temperature for example.
>
> >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.
The analogy has to break down somewhere of course, because
corporations are not animals. However the similarities are what I find
amazing and meme theory explains why!
>
> >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.
>
Memes are of course man made! You can't dismiss them off-hand like that
any more than saying DNA is chemically made! We see progress as moving
forward because the competitive power of the meme has not yet peaked.
But even with "evolution" their is also a kind of faith that adoption is
necessarily heading somewhere over time. We have all seen the drawing of
the fishes coming out of the water then becoming apes then men with
briefcases. Of course you are correct in that evolution does not care
which way its going but I counter does progress care either? It could
just as well lead to undesirable
outcomes.
> >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.
I found a link to the very case I had in mind when I wrote this. I
believe you will find this interesting:
http://rubens.anu.edu.au/student.projects/rabbits/myxo.html
>
> > 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
Of course they have to use different methods for replication. They are
quite different creatures, so to speak. It's their similarity that
fascinates me because they reveal universal truths for replicators in
general!
Nate Hall