X-Message-Number: 5402 From: Peter Merel <> Subject: Re: Memes & Genes Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 11:24:59 +1100 (EST) John Clark writes, >In #5385 Peter Merel <> On Sun, 10 Dec 1995 Wrote: > >Jim Clark writes, >Make that John Clark writes, I'm dreadfully sorry, John - a slip of the neuron. > >My concise OED has a functional definition of "intelligent" > >as "able to vary its behaviour in response to varying > >situations, requirements and past experience". > >I've never seen a definition of intelligence that I thought was >any good, but that doesn't mean that the term is meaningless. My point was only that we prefer different definitions of the term. >The great thing about The Turing Test is that we don't need to >come up with a definition of intelligence, whatever quality it >is that we call "intelligence" when we see it in other people >it's the same quality when we see it a machine or anything else. >I don't see it in a thermostat, and I don't see it in a virus, >even one that mutates. The great thing about the Turing test is that it is pure irony. How do we know something is sentient? Well, first take n sentient things to judge ... but how do we know the judges are sentient? Well, take some more sentient things ... The Turing test is not science - it's satire. The point of the satire is that humans define intelligence in social terms, not functional terms. [ ... dictionary discussion snipped - my fault, I should have included some explicit indication that I was being sarcastic ] > >I'm not the one claiming that the continuity of our genetic > >information predisposes us towards certain behaviours > >Are you saying that NONE of our genes EVER have ANYTHING to with behavior, >not even the genes that build our brain? Human brains are different from the >brain of hamsters because the genes that code for them is different, human >behavior is also somewhat different from the behavior of hamsters. >Are these two facts TOTALLY unrelated? No. However, as I'm sure you're aware, genes don't *predict* human behaviour. There's a difference here - on the one hand, you're saying that human behaviour can be affected by genetic makeup - no argument, of course. On the other, you're saying that human behaviour can be predicted by genetic makeup. It's this conjecture that I dispute. If I've misunderstood you on this then I suspect we're not far from agreement. > >or that our genetic information has anything to do with > >"the meaning of life". > >I don't know who you're quoting but it sure isn't me. It was Dawkins, as quoted here by Skrecky. >I'll be glad to tell >you what the meaning of life is just as soon as you explain to me in a >non circular manner the meaning of the word "meaning". Purpose, intention, aim, goal - ymmv. > >didn't you just tell me that a celibate has some kind of > >internal conflict between his "genetic predisposition" [...] > >and his memetic information? > >Yes, but It's interesting that you've snipped the scientology reference. I found the Fishman material on the web the other day, and I was amazed by the resemblance between Hubbard's "thetans" and Dawkin's "memes". There are deep contextual differences, or at least I hope there are, but I strongly suspect that if Hubbard had started his cult today he'd have been using your terminology. No offence intended, but you might like to seek that material out purely for interest's sake - I shan't give a URL because the CoS allegedly does unpleasant things to people who do that, but a Lycos search using the word "Fishman" should turn the material up for you. >Even if a gene that induced biologists to slice >their DNA into amoebas was possible (and it's not) I don't see >how this activity would produce more biologists who wanted to >do the same thing. It would soon become extinct, replaced by >more successful genes. Why would it become extinct? We've seen that "rubbish" DNA can hang around in our genes indefinitely - if our mad biologists were to (say) push their DNA into algae, and fire that algae by rocket (a la Sagan) at the planet Venus, then those genes might survive any other genes on Earth! It might even be possible, given a billion years or so, that the evolved descendants of our mad biologists might themselves become mad biologists, and pass some of the same genes along via another rocket ... But I'm evading your point. You're saying that genes code for behaviour that makes it likely for those genes to be passed along. In non-sentient creatures, I agree with you. In sentients, memes aside, I can't see why that should be so. But Dawkins was suggesting, in the quote that started this thread, that this is so. Hence my objection. >The other strategy is more recent, it is to put more effort >into the individual, put a high priority on cell repair so the >animal lives longer and it is hoped long enough to reproduces. >Sometimes this even goes so far as to give the animal a brain. >This strategy reaches it's most extreme form in human beings. >It's worked very well for us in the last million years, but >it's much too soon to say if it is better than the older strategy >over the long haul. As I said at the start of this, DNA nothing more than an implementation detail. To talk about "strategies" again implies that the perpetuation of DNA is the goal - and we're back to teleology again. >Ask me again in a billion years. In fact there seems a chance that within the next millenium we humans will give up DNA as a means of perpetuating ourselves - if nanotech works out and we head for the stars. At that point, do you reckon that DNA's "strategy" will have succeeded or failed? -- mailto: | Accept Everything. | http://www.zip.com.au/~pete/ | Reject Nothing. | Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5402