Same cut and paste replies. then declarations of victory…disclaimers…and repeat.
The world must be pulled down, before it dies…in body as it has already in spirit - in mind.
Revenge of the disenchanted and un-invested.
Linguistic resentiment, by those who worship the idol, and call him fritze to pretend a nonchalant attitude.
Nietzsche’s Bitches.
We call em Nietches.
fitz fried…addictive to the unsophisticated of palate.
I really hate it when people mix genetics, evolution and just random stuff together. Biology contains all the miracles you’ll ever need. CGAT is a language, epigentic methylation of expression sites is another, mutagenisis is the spoon that stirs the pot. By comparison memes are badly spelled Chinese knock-off t-shirts.
Please stop hurting science with pseudo-philosophic bumper-stickers and historical leaps of faith. Also. Read a book. That’s gotta be a t-shirt. Or like that guy from Top-gun. Do the research. I dunno, whatever.
Right…stay as you are.
From genes to memes.
Genes use nucleotides, memes use symbols.
Memes are extensions of genes. Evolution of genetic encoding, into linguistic semiotic, encoding.
Zip, crunch, burl bath, gurgle…snap.
Genes do not ‘use’ anything, they simply ‘are’. However, they do by their nature contain the mechanisms of their own propagation. And so persist.
Memes do not ‘use’ anything, they simply ‘are’. Unlike genes, they are inert in their nature, unable to propagate alone.
Unlike genes, which are seemingly ubiquitous to life, at least on this planet, memes are only indirect extensions of a very small number of genes, and even then, only when those genes are combined into, so far, only one very specific configuration - namely the human genome. A bacteria genome does not extend itself into memes, nor a cheetah’s, nor a daisy’s.
Genes directly code for chemical processes, a byproduct of which is physical bodies of varying properties and abilities. These bodies, simply through their own agency, compete with each other, and with the nature of the enviroment into which they are inserted.
Memes sometimes code for behaviour, and/or emotion which drives latent behaviour in humans. However, the competitiveness of these memes is not inherrent to the meme itself, but to the abilities of the human who expresses them and secondarily the vehicle upon which said human expresses them.
Put very simply for comparison, a genome coding for a strong body will overcome directly a genome coding for a weak body. A ‘weak’ meme, however, expressed by a ‘strong’ human will overcome a ‘strong’ meme expressed by a ‘weak’ human. Imagine a room full of congenitally weak geophysicists and one cannibal with biceps the size of melons who believes the earth is flat. Which meme ‘wins’…? And was the nature of its success dependent in any way on its own merits…?
Also note that some gene complexes can also code for behaviour - innate aversions for snakes - or at least the shape of snakes, and some influencers of prey behaviour in mice and ants are examples that spring to mind. Memes completely lack the ability to code for bodies, unless you count gym-culture, and even that is stretching further than a 12th dan yoga ninja.
The above was an exercise in examining/defining terms. If you do not do this, anything you infer, imply or propose consequently, means exactly squat.
“Memes are extensions of genes” in the same way that “tables are extensions of trees”.