X-Message-Number: 5340 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 20:59:40 -0800 From: John K Clark <> Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Memes -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In #5327 Peter Merel <> On Mon, 4 Dec 1995 Wrote: >[Criticizing Dawkins theory of memes] One might say, in the >same vein, that cars have no higher purpose than to >perpetuate the survival of the internal combustion engine, >or that computers have no higher purpose than to perpetuate >the survival of bits. I don't think such things have a "higher purpose" or a purpose at all in an absolute sense, only relative purpose. The purpose of a violin for me may be to make music, for you it may be as a fly swatter to squash a bug. Cars and even present day computers are poor analogies for DNA. Evolution doesn't work very well, but it's important because before the days when matter could act in intelligent ways (matter like us) it was the only way complex structures could get built. DNA can reproduce itself without the aid of intelligence, cars and up to this point computers, can not. One thing is absolutely essential for Evolution to work, and that is a reproduction system. >The furphy here is that life, cars or computers have any >innate purpose - imho such teleological rubbish doesn't >belong in a magazine that describes itself as "scientific". Dawkins sometimes usees anthropomorphic terms, I do to, and will continue to do so, because it's a useful shorthand. It is not, of course, mente to be taken literally. "Purpose" in this context means, what something does, how it got to be the way it is, and most important of all, what is being maximized. It's easier to just use the word "purpose". I'm surprised I have to explain this to you. Be honest, did you REALLY think that Richard Dawkins, of all people, the same man who wrote " The Selfish Gene " and " The Extended Phenotype", was a believer in teleology and assigned purpose to evolution?! >manifest destiny is bunk too. Huh? Manifest destiny? I didn't see anything about destiny, manifest or otherwise. >We're entering an era of evolution-by-design. Revolution-by-design would be a better term. Certainly it will have little to do with conventional Darwinian evolution with it's random mutation and natural selection. Lamarckism, that is, evolution by the inheritance of acquired characteristics, will play an important part however, it's already the powerhouse behind cultural evolution. John K Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.i iQCzAgUBMMPOKn03wfSpid95AQGkwQTwx/hkSUxkQ8MD9l1vilvTdSIWgekMcTl/ /AyjTwyh9b8eh8xOXfg5PzeIeNmTDLLTEI4aRb5NjX5tFEuwVJzTY2JZxEejkoWy iUXO7c+k1QXsnRYmMDs9iLq/euDCESx/jlMBUdIunN/xUwNHnf2nDjb2XmuoLV0u EimHMRqxvwGRH8W6otf0FGvL2RPhaGSV2+jix7IaZkRIEctq5jU= =rHmE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5340