Memes versus Genes

[STeve555]

DNA is a replicator, a molecular string of information that exists out of reproductive and protein building routines or instructions.

But a so called meme is a presupposed replicator of cultural inheritable units of information acting somewhat like a gene, but not always.

Since the only creatures on earth that have a notion of culture are supposedly humans, the concept meme can not be other than a human invention.

 

When a zygote is formed you can basically deem that a shuffled deck of cards consisting of both the mamma and pappa genome and an embryo will start growing accordingly.

But as soon as the embryo takes on the shape of a humanoid inside the womb it soon enough will be susceptible to ex-utero influences. That is where nurture and nature first meet.

 

Replicators are sometimes called blind. Sometimes even called "selfish", but that latter term merely contributes to misconception of the concept replicators in my opinion.

 

 

But both genes and memes are blind. They are not selfish, egocentric or whatever. One might even wonder if "genes" are alive or dead.

I suspect they are dead since they are merely molecules. But all those molecules acting together make up for a living being. That is why life itself must be deemed holistic.

With or without a deity life is holistic. The sum or product of it's parts is always worth more than each part seperately.

 

The awkward paradox with DNA as a replicator, is that mammals capable of rational thinking, like humanoids and perhaps dolphins, are actually the vehicle of those very reproducing strings of molecules. How can a vehicle of replicators (DNA) possibly become aware of the fact that it is built by DNA itself, and that that is the underlying building blocks for the cortex that made pinocchio aware of his own gepetto. If genes are blind for a fact, humans gave them a white cane.

Remember Descartes? "I think, therefor I am" And because he thought that animals could not think, they were automatically deemed automatons. But if all things that do not think do not exist why could Descartes still see and lift a stone?

The stone does not exist in his mind for it thinks not.

But he could not have known about bacteria and viruses. Maybe "to be" in Descartes mind was something difference than "to exist".

 

My questions are: 1) are memes truly replicators somewhat like DNA. And if so, are there any other forms of replicators aside from DNA and memes?

 

2) if we are made out of dead molecules, like Lego stones, and grow into thinking individuals. Why do telomeres suddenly take away life from us?

 

 

3) why do turtles and parrots live longer than most other reptiles and birds respectively?

Edited October 16, 2012 by STeve555

[immortal]

My questions are: 1) are memes truly replicators somewhat like DNA.

 

Yes, memes do make copies of themselves and mutate and will be passed on from generation to generation. I don't think they follow the same principles of genetic evolution and also note that once a gene is lost it is lost forever but where as in memes whether they are bad or good will stay as it is without getting deteriorated.

 

And if so, are there any other forms of replicators aside from DNA and memes?

 

Yes, periodic crystals and also prions discovered by James prusiner, so even some proteins do replicate and make copies of itself.

 

2) if we are made out of dead molecules, like Lego stones, and grow into thinking individuals. Why do telomeres suddenly take away life from us?

 

 

A load of factors like metabolic rate, reproductive success, diseases like cancer etc induce selection pressure which determines the life span of a species.

[EquisDeXD]

DNA is a replicator, a molecular string of information that exists out of reproductive and protein building routines or instructions.

But a so called meme is a presupposed replicator of cultural inheritable units of information acting somewhat like a gene, but not always.

Since the only creatures on earth that have a notion of culture are supposedly humans, the concept meme can not be other than a human invention.

 

When a zygote is formed you can basically deem that a shuffled deck of cards consisting of both the mamma and pappa genome and an embryo will start growing accordingly.

But as soon as the embryo takes on the shape of a humanoid inside the womb it soon enough will be susceptible to ex-utero influences. That is where nurture and nature first meet.

 

Replicators are sometimes called blind. Sometimes even called "selfish", but that latter term merely contributes to misconception of the concept replicators in my opinion.

 

 

But both genes and memes are blind. They are not selfish, egocentric or whatever. One might even wonder if "genes" are alive or dead.

I suspect they are dead since they are merely molecules. But all those molecules acting together make up for a living being. That is why life itself must be deemed holistic.

With or without a deity life is holistic. The sum or product of it's parts is always worth more than each part seperately.

 

The awkward paradox with DNA as a replicator, is that mammals capable of rational thinking, like humanoids and perhaps dolphins, are actually the vehicle of those very reproducing strings of molecules. How can a vehicle of replicators (DNA) possibly become aware of the fact that it is built by DNA itself, and that that is the underlying building blocks for the cortex that made pinocchio aware of his own gepetto. If genes are blind for a fact, humans gave them a white cane.

Remember Descartes? "I think, therefor I am" And because he thought that animals could not think, they were automatically deemed automatons. But if all things that do not think do not exist why could Descartes still see and lift a stone?

The stone does not exist in his mind for it thinks not.

But he could not have known about bacteria and viruses. Maybe "to be" in Descartes mind was something difference than "to exist".

 

My questions are: 1) are memes truly replicators somewhat like DNA. And if so, are there any other forms of replicators aside from DNA and memes?

 

2) if we are made out of dead molecules, like Lego stones, and grow into thinking individuals. Why do telomeres suddenly take away life from us?

 

 

3) why do turtles and parrots live longer than most other reptiles and birds respectively?

It's a complicated question "how do we know we are here?", and genetics itself is complicated enough. With regards to saying "perhaps dolphins" sort of implies that you think simpler life forms have no consciousness, the way consciousness seems to scientifically work, you can't just say something automatically doesn't have it and another thing automatically does, there's no clear cut way of looking at it, there's no finite boundaries, but rather a smooth spectrum. Other animals like even beetles are made out of essentially the same stuff of us, just hydrogen and then combinations of hydrogen, and even have somewhere around 60% of the same DNA, it's hard to think that something that similar has a definitively measure of 0 consciousness especially considering consciousness doesn't exist in units which you can quantify, and it makes a lot more sense that less complex things would have a less but still non zero consciousness because how in evolution or just general bio development could you just jump from 0 consciousness to complex mammalia consciousness? It doesn't really happen like that in evolution.

Also, I made the same mistake with the "selifsh" gene theory, but it seems it could have been a misunderstanding, because surely someone has smart as Dawkins knows genes can't actually be selfish, he merely stated that you would think that after all this time the only genes that survive would have to be those that benefit an organism, which isn't always but is mostly true, and still doesn't say that any particular action is determined by anything to be selfish.

With regards to memes, scientifically they can behave like genes, there are of course specific actions in a given culture that are not permitted, though the exact consequences for that particular mutation of the culture like in genes themselves is completely random.

 

And, we're not made out of "dead" molecules, dead is a subjective term, the molecules are neither dead nor alive, there simply exists molecules which inhibit the factors that appear to create consciousness.

[ydoaPs]

once a gene is lost it is lost forever but where as in memes whether they are bad or good will stay as it is without getting deteriorated.

 

All your memes are belong to us.

[EquisDeXD]

All your memes are belong to us.

 

Do do memes have to do with that song?

Edited October 17, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[STeve555]

How are dolphins "simpler" lifeforms? Did you know that dolphins have the same syntax comprehension of a human being? first person, second person, and its plural derivates. They can recognize their own mirror image too.

 

So a dolphin at a certain age is smarter than a 2 year old human being. Just because another mammal does not speak human language does not mean it does not think like humans. Feral humans raised by dogs lack the ability to speak, as goes for a lot of deaf people. Actually deaf people are better off not speaking, and instead focus on sign language.

Too bad deaf people are often born out of perfectly hearing parents, so these parents have to learn sign language.

 

Dolphins speak, but in a language we can not mimic yet. Some people argue that the way they ambush fish is similar to the lion strategy of hunting.

But is not the dolphin killing by humans in scandinavian countries the same tactic?

 

Dogs can smell cancer in human beings. Humans can not even invent a machine that emulates that trait.

 

The only problem with dolphins is: humans are too stupid to think of a way to communicate with them.

 

Dolphins even have a sense of time, tense of past, present and future.

 

It it not merely religious people who deem themselves on top of evolution.

 

The fact we are not yet able to communicate with dolphins is a demerit concerning our intelligence.

 

Fuck dolphins, I do not even like the critters...but it is the one species that is capable of communicating with autistic people the way humans can not.

 

Trust me: if an animal can recognize itself in a mirror it is capable of thinking in abstract dimensions.

 

It is merely our shortcoming in power to invent a way to translate this shit.

 

sure, we are the smartest species on this planet. That is not the issue here. But I do not believe we are the only species here that are aware of its earthly surroundings. Dolphins, Octopus, chimpansee...I believe in that order are capable of communicating with humans if latter merely found a way how to.

Edited October 21, 2012 by STeve555

[EquisDeXD]

How are dolphins "simpler" lifeforms? Did you know that dolphins have the same syntax comprehension of a human being? first person, second person, and its plural derivates. They can recognize their own mirror image too.

 

 

So a dolphin at a certain age is smarter than a 2 year old human being. Just because another mammal does not speak human language does not mean it does not think like humans. Feral humans raised by dogs lack the ability to speak, as goes for a lot of deaf people. Actually deaf people are better off not speaking, and instead focus on sign language.

Too bad deaf people are often born out of perfectly hearing parents, so these parents have to learn sign language.

 

Dolphins speak, but in a language we can not mimic yet. Some people argue that the way they ambush fish is similar to the lion strategy of hunting.

But is not the dolphin killing by humans in scandinavian countries the same tactic?

 

The only problem with dolphins is: humans are too stupid to think of a way to communicate with them.

 

Dolphins even have a sense of time, tense of past, present and future.

 

It it not merely religious people who deem themselves on top of evolution.

 

The fact we are not yet able to communicate with dolphins is a demerit concerning our intelligence.

 

Fuck dolphins, I do not even like the critters...but it is the one species that is capable of communicating with autistic people the way humans can not.

 

Trust me: if an animal can recognize itself in a mirror it is capable of thinking in abstract dimensions.

 

It is merely our shortcoming in power to invent a way to translate this shit.

Did you...read my post? Because I was in support of saying other animals had non-zero consciousness. I don't think dolphins are much simpler at all, I was referring to the slight differences in brain structure, because that link sort of shows the gateway to the other thing that I was saying, which is that if you have dolphins be almost exactly as mentally capable as average humans, but have something be almost as capable as dolphins and have something be almost as capable as that thing that's almost as capable as dolphins which are almost exactly as capable as humans, there's no real way to say that perception or comprehension or consciousness or whatever you want to call it just cuts off after a certain point.

Edited October 21, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[STeve555]

Animals.

 

Homo Sapiens Sapiens is an ANIMAL. A animal that is not always on top of the food chain, but pretty much always.

The sheer fact of rudimentary homology in fossiles proves God is not a very great and efficient architect.

 

Not that efficiency is a divine trait. Why should an omnipotent deity be prompted with scarceness in the first place?

 

I do not believe in monotheist gods as portrait in the Pentateuch, Second Testament, The Vedas (or plural)

 

There should be a way to communicate with dolphins. But in scientific terms that would be almost the same as communicating with

people having and I.Q. of less than 50. And I do not mean dolphins are that stupid.

 

Hey, it is not that i am such a dolphin lover, but I really believe these flipper fucks have a certain edge that is overlooked somehow.

It just strikes me odd that they have a proved sense of grammar.

Some people think language is a trait that is passed on from one generation to another. I do not buy that junk.

Sure, with some finches this is the case. But that is merely altering the trait of language, not implementing it.

 

I do think dolphins are capable of abstract thinking. But the bandwidth between us and them falls short.

Maybe even further than maladaptation, we can not communicate with them aside from superficial gameplay.

Edited October 23, 2012 by STeve555

[Moontanman]

Animals.

 

Homo Sapiens Sapiens is an ANIMAL. A animal that is not always on top of the food chain, but pretty much always.

The sheer fact of rudimentary homology in fossiles proves God is not a very great and efficient architect.

 

Not that efficiency is a divine trait. Why should an omnipotent deity be prompted with scarceness in the first place?

 

I do not believe in monotheist gods as portrait in the Pentateuch, Second Testament, The Vedas (or plural)

 

There should be a way to communicate with dolphins. But in scientific terms that would be almost the same as communicating with

people having and I.Q. of less than 50. And I do not mean dolphins are that stupid.

 

Hey, it is not that i am such a dolphin lover, but I really believe these flipper fucks have a certain edge that is overlooked somehow.

It just strikes me odd that they have a proved sense of grammar.

Some people think language is a trait that is passed on from one generation to another. I do not buy that junk.

Sure, with some finches this is the case. But that is merely altering the trait of language, not implementing it.

 

I do think dolphins are capable of abstract thinking. But the bandwidth between us and them falls short.

Maybe even further than maladaptation, we can not communicate with them aside from superficial gameplay.

 

 

Maybe we aren't smart enough to communicate with dolphins. Can you support your statement that dolphins can communicate with autistic people?

 

Parrots can talk and I don't mean just mimic human words...

Edited October 23, 2012 by Moontanman