$2jl3$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org> 








Organization: Race towards an early grave
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.5b2 (Mac OS X version 10.2.8)
NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
X-Trace: news.unimelb.edu.au 1064991252 128.250.252.193 (1 Oct 2003 16:54:12 +1000)
X-Original-Trace: 1 Oct 2003 16:54:12 +1000, machine193.wehi.edu.au
Lines: 57

Tim Tyler  wrote:

> John Wilkins  wrote or quoted:
> 
> > It is worth noting, however, that Dawkins himself did allow for multiple
> > loci of selection. The very discussion of "meme" is
evidence of that,
> > and it is this that set off Hull's attempt to develop a generalised
> > substrate-neutral account of evolution. Memes are not genes, nor are
> > they genetically-biassed (in Dawkins' original discussion). He therefore
> > did *not* restrict selection to genes.
> > 
> > What he did was this, I think: he generalised form the typical mode of
> > reproduction in animals to an account of a class of entities -
> > replicators. He then interpreted *all* evolution as replication-based,
> > and so restricted the typical mode to the *only legitimate* mode of
> > evolution. [...]
> 
> I don't see Dawkins as trying to make a philosophical point about
> the fidelity of information transfer between generations - or about
> whether the representation is the same across generations.
> 
> I think he was just trying to use the most expressive word.

I don't. I think Dawkins means that information is a thing, and that it
is causal. I also think this is a fundamental category error, one that
has driven western thought since the Logos doctrine of the middle
Platonists and the Stoics.
> 
> "Replication" has an advantage over "reproduction"
there - since the
> former denotes hi-fi information transfer (of the type necessary to
> life) - while the latter does not.

Why not? Replication is merely one extreme of the range of fidelity of
reproduction, and in any case the fidelity "measure" depends crucially
on what it is we choose to note and choose to ignore. 
> 
> Flames reproduce - but they can hardly be said to replicate.
> 
> "Replication" seems like a good word to use because it makes
> this distinction.

The distinction is arbitrary and model-sensitive. It depends, that is to
say, on what *we* think, not on what is.
> 
> Sure, certain encrypted computer viruses illustrate that it
> is information - not data - that is being transferred between
> generations - and thus replication is not strictly necessary.
> 
> However I think if you are making this distinction, you probably
> understand the idea Dawkins was trying to convey anyway ;-)

I like to think I do...
-- 
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly, 
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/1/03 3:22:10 PM