tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6535481649727720492.post4822621806610580805..comments2024-03-19T08:13:31.437-04:00Comments on NEW SAVANNA: Issues in Cultural Evolution 2.1: Micro Evolution, Dawkins and MemesBill Benzonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08360044945265178991noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6535481649727720492.post-59791646294065596882015-01-20T20:23:17.470-05:002015-01-20T20:23:17.470-05:00If a biologist wants to take up the gene's eye...If a biologist wants to take up the gene's eye view as a heuristic procedure, that's fine. Biologists know a lot about replication of DNA molecules, about cell division, about reproduction, and so forth.<br /><br />But memetics is different. Up there I posted a transcript of a TED talk that Dennett gave. Here's a passage:<br /><br /><i>Well, it's ideas – not worms – that hijack Bill Benzonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360044945265178991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6535481649727720492.post-51399995855973942272015-01-19T21:33:50.267-05:002015-01-19T21:33:50.267-05:00Firstly, culture is part of biology. Most critics ...Firstly, culture is part of biology. Most critics object to the whole idea of anthropomorphising tiny bits of information. Accepting that this idea is useful in the case of genes - and not in the case of memes is a curious position which I haven't encountered before. It seems to me that the exact same logic applies in both cases. Just as one can identify with a gene and wonder what you might Tim Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06623536372084468307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6535481649727720492.post-76472260135467787742015-01-19T19:46:09.698-05:002015-01-19T19:46:09.698-05:00You didn't read what I wrote:
He introduced t...You didn't read what I wrote:<br /><br /><i>He introduced the notion of memes as an example of another kind of replicator in another kind of evolutionary process. Dawkins talks of genes as agents – “leaping from body to body” – as he often does. But he is certainly able to cash out this metaphorical talk with a technical account that doesn’t depend of treating genes as little self-propelled Bill Benzonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360044945265178991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6535481649727720492.post-40529566957127686822015-01-19T18:32:46.567-05:002015-01-19T18:32:46.567-05:00That should also be your chief complaint with gene...That should also be your chief complaint with genetics too - since genes are endowed with agency as much as memes are - what with Dawkins' selfish genes, Waddington's "Strategy of the genes", Wills' "Wisdom of the Genes" - and so on.<br /><br />There's a long history of philosophers decrying such talk as anthropomorphism, and an equally long history of Tim Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06623536372084468307noreply@blogger.com