* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download The Mean Between Meme and Gene Comparison
Therapeutic gene modulation wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics in learning and memory wikipedia , lookup
Transposable element wikipedia , lookup
Genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Non-coding DNA wikipedia , lookup
Cancer epigenetics wikipedia , lookup
Population genetics wikipedia , lookup
Human genome wikipedia , lookup
Long non-coding RNA wikipedia , lookup
Adaptive evolution in the human genome wikipedia , lookup
Heritability of IQ wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics of neurodegenerative diseases wikipedia , lookup
Oncogenomics wikipedia , lookup
Public health genomics wikipedia , lookup
Site-specific recombinase technology wikipedia , lookup
Pathogenomics wikipedia , lookup
Nutriepigenomics wikipedia , lookup
Polycomb Group Proteins and Cancer wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression programming wikipedia , lookup
Essential gene wikipedia , lookup
Artificial gene synthesis wikipedia , lookup
History of genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Quantitative trait locus wikipedia , lookup
Designer baby wikipedia , lookup
Genomic imprinting wikipedia , lookup
Genome evolution wikipedia , lookup
Genome (book) wikipedia , lookup
Ridge (biology) wikipedia , lookup
Microevolution wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics of human development wikipedia , lookup
Minimal genome wikipedia , lookup
The Mean Between Meme and Gene Comparison J. Jordyne Wu '03 “People ache to believe that we human beings are vastly different from all other species—and they are right! We are different. We are the only species that has an extra medium of design preservation and design communication: culture.” (Dennett, 1995) “There is no denying that there is cultural evolution, in the Darwin-neutral sense that cultures change over time, accumulating and losing features, while also maintaining features from earlier ages… But whether such evolution is weakly or strongly analogous to, or parallel to, genetic evolution,the process that Darwinian theory explains so well, is an open question.” (Dennett, 1995) In Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett attributes the difference between Homo sapiens and all other known species to the development of culture. To compare the evolution of culture to biology, he focuses on the discussion of memes and genes. Expanding on Richard Dawkin’s definition of a meme” as referring to any item of cultural evolution, Dennett considers, modifies, and presents his own account of memes as “complex ideas that form themselves into distinct memorable units,” and their comparison to genes, the DNA-composed hereditary unit that determines the characteristics of organisms (Dennett, 1995). Dennett begins by citing similarities in their origins and development of memes and genes through the process of natural selection, focusing on the notion that both serve to transmit information. While memes transmit cultural information, genes transmit hereditary information. However, noting differences in replication, media, vehicles, and rates of evolution, Dennett rejects extreme views of memes as either a strict analogue of genes, as advocated by Dawkins, or as entirely different from the principles governing evolution, as supported by Stephen Jay Gould. Instead, he advocates a middle ground, perceiving the advantage of a biological perspective of culture, while acknowledging that memetics is a Darwinian phenomenon, rather than a Darwinian science. As such, memes fail to be strict analogues of genes, since their adherence to the laws of natural selection is inexact. Yet, meme evolution is analogous to, and metaphorically related to, biological evolution. Though this moderate view is sound in principle, Dennett too generously leans towards Dawkin’s support of gene-meme equivalence, and ultimately fails to capture much of the disparity between memes and genes. Not only are there significant differences concerning origins and the expression of genes and memes, especially in the absence of phenotype for the latter, but most importantly, memes ultimately arise from genes themselves and are completely dependent on their hosts. Once again, the general appeal of Darwinism is both its forte and danger, readily applicable to various phenomena, and yet easily stretched and overemphasized to fit Dennett’s notion that it is the universal acid that will eventually eat away everything. In what follows, I shall present Dennett’s stated similarities and differences between memes and genes while offering my own analysis when his position seems to overstate the resemblance between memes and genes. courtesy Simon & Schuster ORIGINS OF MEMES & GENES Dennett begins with a story describing the origin of memes paralleling the creation of eukaryotic cells, which paved the way for multicellular life. However, not only are both stories vague and that of the meme’s pure speculation, but memes appear to have evolved from genes themselves rather than being an analogue. In Dennett’s view, memes invaded primates and turned them into witting posts or persons, just as parasites invaded reproducing prokaryotes, thus forming eukaryotes (Dennett, 1995).Genes were then able to develop from the disorganized, primitive, volatile chemical components in prokaryotes into the complex, varied, yet stable structures in first single-stranded RNA, and later in double-helix DNA in the nucleus of multicellular organisms. Dennett suggests that after thousands of years of evolution, memes, which began as the most simple of cultural ideas such as the taming of fire, the invention of the wheel, or the creation of the alphabet, became complex ideas like chess, existentialism, Darwinism’ natural selection, or even meme theory. Although both stories of origin involve handwaving, the parallel that memes also invaded and have developed to allow their hosts to “leap through Design Space as nothing had ever done before” is much more vague and ignores that memes themselves come from minds in a mindless, algorithmic process (Dennett, 1995). While Dennett notes that memes were well adapted to finding homes in their hosts since they were themselves created by their hosts as the minds of primates evolved, he ignores the conclusion which follows: that memes seem to be a consequence, rather than an analogue, of genes (Dennett, 1995). Instead, he seems to support Richard Dawkin’s claim that just as genes for plants paved the way for genes of animals by providing an oxygen-rich atmosphere and ready supply of convertible nutri- 23 ents, Homo sapeins genes paved the road for memes with “brains that could provide shelter, and habits or communication that could provide transmission media for memes” (Dennett, 1995).Yet despite his support of Dawkin’s view, Dennett falters and ultimately fails to embrace the extreme view that memes are actually evolved genes as much as animal genes are evolved plant genes. REPLICATION OF MEMES & GENES Dennett claims a further similarity between memes and genes inasmuch as both are types of replicating entities; thus, memes fit in with the picture of evolution drawn from biology. Although Dennett recognizes some differences, the connections are weak since the fundamental differences between memes and genes , such as their defining units, relationship to one another, and expression, is ultimately too difficult to reconcile.. Dennett cites variation, heredity or replication, and “differential fitness” as the conditions of evolution and supports Dawkin’s claim that “all life evolves by the differentiation of replicating entities” (Dennett, 1995). Taking this stance, even though genes and memes may differ in method, media, and rate of transmission, he maintains that they are still similar in passing information by mutation, variation, and selection. Genes travel from one generation to the next in bodies via sperm and egg while memes propagate themselves in brains by imitation, as when a student learns calculus from a teacher (Dennett, 1995). Yet Dennett rightly rejects the strong memetics notions that the meme counterpart to the complex structures of DNA as the vehicle for genes is complex brain structures or a homeobox. He recognizes that while genes have a “strong alignment of semantic and syntactical identity,” giving rise to a “genetic language, in which meaning is (roughly) preserved across all species,” memes are primarily semantically, and not syntactically, significant (Dennett, 1995). The “brain language” which preserves and conveys cultural information is not in any particular language or media but can be passed by speech, written word, or even artifacts. Still, there is a yet greater discrepancy that Dennett does not consider between genes and memes in the issue of units, relationship to one another, and phenotypic expression. EXPRESSION OF MEMES & GENES Whereas genes are comprised of smaller units —nucleic acids — and express themselves in larger units —phenotypes —memes seem to have nothing analogous. Unlike genes, which have clear beginning and end points on a strand of DNA, memes have no distinct starting and stopping points because ideas are amorphous. The English language as a meme illustrates the difficulty of fitting it into a gene concept. There is disagreement over the exact definition of a meme. It could be symbolic in the alphabet, or syntactical in the rules of grammar or semantic in formed sentences. Moreover, unlike a gene, which is coded and contained within an individual, the meme of the English language seems spread among the entire English-speaking population. No one brain contains the meme of the entire English language. Distinct from a gene, a meme can neither be broken down nor processed to be phenotypically expressed since it stands by itself as an idea. The smallest unit of an idea seems simply to be the idea itself since there is no universal language to parse, and memes are semantic rather than syntactical in nature as Dennett recognizes. Memes also have no distinct phenotype in that the ideas they express are just that— the ideas themselves. Genes instruct cells to generate proteins, which determine the phenotype the genes express, such as eye color or hair type. Dennett attempts to argue that a meme’s phenotype is the way it affects the environment, with the things in the environment being minds and other memes (Dennett, 1995). He argues that instead of instructing protein synthesis as genes do, memes instruct behavior. Dennett’s explanation is vague primarily because the bridge linking their analogy is tenuous as best. The example of the first four notes from Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony as the genotype, and the phenotypic effect of keeping intact a certain identity of effect, fails in drawing the parallel. Perhaps Dennett could appeal to the complex relationship between genotype and phenotype to illustrate its likeliness to meme expression. A phenotype is rarely expressed by one gene alone. Instead, it is usually a combination of different genes giving different directions to build different proteins, which then combine and interact to give the phenotypic effect of blue eyes. A combination of memes then also gives rise to a certain set of beliefs or mode of behavior. However, this view more typifies the value of examining people’s actions and beliefs from a biological perspective, stretching the Darwinian analogy, rather than giving an accurate account of how memes and meme expression operate. After all, there is an abundance of junk DNA that codes for nothing at all but is copied and passed along. In contrast, a meme is not capable of being junk because it is an idea. Moreover, if there were a meme consisting of meaningless gibberish sentences, it would fail to be passed along unlike the gibberish genes of the junk DNA. Whereas a gene must be expressed to be of any meaning, a meme is an idea all in itself. Although It can combine with other memes to form behavior, it does not need to combine to modify behavior or give any other effect. It stands on its own as both the smallest unit and also the larger expression. ■ MEMES & GENES IN TRANSMITTING INFORMATION Another similarity between genes and memes is in transmitting information. Again, Dennett carries a surface similarity too far . While both mutate, memes mutate far more frequently and in a directed fashion. While genes and memes may both be immortal in that the transmission of information may continue forever, they both need hosts from which they express themselves. Dennett describes the dependence of genes on human organisms and memes on human conservators for a continuous chain of physical vehicles (Dennett, 1995). Dennett astutely notes that for both, brute replication does not necessarily guarantee survival since forces of selection are at work to preserve the “fittest” from the pool. Dennett 25 recognizes that the development of the gene and meme pool differ in the method and rate of mutation. Most genetic mutations occur during the process of reading and transposing DNA and sexual reproduction. Genes are generally quite stable, which is one of the key reasons for the successful formulation and evolution of life. In contrast, memes seem to constantly mutate since “brains seem to be designed to do just the opposite: to transform, invent, interpolate, censor, and generally mix up the ‘input’ before yielding any ‘output’” (Dennett, 1995). This directed mutation and blending of memes also differs from the randomness of genetic mutations. Although human beings are constantly synthesizing new ideas and rarely pass on information in the pristine condition in which they receive it , many memes are in fact passed with little critical contemplation or additives such as the alphabet, rules of grammar, or the method for telling time. Moreover, many memes must be taken on faith as part of the learning process before a person can be critical, seemingly debunking the “survival of the fittest” theory. Some bad ideas, such as the example of bad philosophical arguments for a first year class, are passed on in a linked-loci fashion where a meme is attached to a fit meme, a comparison to a good philosophical argument. However, these examples do not imply an automatic or mindless passing along of information. Rather they show the “fitness” of a meme to being so strong as to withstand the questioning and probing in most minds. For instance, the method of telling time has been altered through the ages only to be in its present form right now. If a person were to come up with a better method, the legitimacy of that meme would be challenged. However, Dennett recognizes that human beings have filters for memes, including a tendency to keep existing memes in a habit. MEMES’ DEPENDENCE ON HOSTS The overarching difference between genes and memes is the memes’ dependence on hosts, which far surpasses any interaction between that of gene and host. Organisms are certainly a product of both genes and memes. Yet, genetic composition is somewhat independent of the host in that the host inherits its genes and there are little changes, especially ones induced by the host, that occur after the initial combination from the parents and random mutations. In contrast, the mutation and replication of memes is directly facilitated by the host. Moreover, the environment is a much larger contributing factor to the changes of memes than of genes. Some exceptions to host or environmentally directed changes may be the accidental mistake in copying, translating, or repeating an idea. Even the instances of automatic passage such as the alphabet discussed before are not mindless. Ideas are formed and altered in the minds of human beings, even if the minds themselves are governed by algorithmic processes. Once again, memes can be seen as arising in part from genes and not, as what some rhetoric would suggest, an actual analogue or a supe- rior transmitter of information. Its vehicle of “brain language” is a result of the complex processes of the mind, the medium of memes which itself is formed by genes. Its rapid rate, a rate that overtakes the slow evolutionary process of genes, can also be attributed to the minds of human beings. Even the memes of high technologycan be traced to those very genes, which gave rise to the mind, which gave rise to the ideas, or memes, of modifying genes. To state that memes are now surpassing genes as some claim would be to say that genes are outdoing themselves. It is simply a matter of more, rather than different, evolution. THE MEAN BETWEEN MEME & GENE COMPARISON However, slipping down the path of greedy reductionism, reducing all phenomena to the most basic, is just as easy and just as misguided as sliding down the path of greedy Darwinism where everything is viewed in Darwinian terms. Although memes may have originated from minds or from genes themselves, to view it in this reductionist sense would be neither descriptive nor useful. Just as Dennett’s examples of “A Comparison of Keats and Shelley from the Molecular Point of View” or “Explaining the Decisions of the Rehnquist Court in Terms of Entropy Fluctuations” are absurd and provide no explanatory powers whatsoever, taking a memes reduced to genes view is likewise a mistake (Dennett, 1995). Explaining memes as analogous to instead of purely arising from, genes can provide insight in the way culture operates. Dennett himself believes that “memes could transform the operating system or computational architecture of a human brain,” stating that culturally transmitted habits transform the genetically designed hardware of the human brain into something more powerful (Dennett, 1995). While he over-emphasizes the independence and power of genes in his rhetoric, he does ultimately believe that the evolution of memes is a Darwinian phenomenon rather than a Darwinian science. Dennett must simply take caution that he does not attribute too much significance to the analogy since memes differ from genes in origin (having arisen from genes themselves), in expression, and in degree of host dependency. Indeed, human beings with values, beliefs, and goals are products of their genes and culture. Dennett notes that “what makes us special is that we, alone among species, can rise above the imperative of our genes—thanks to the lifting cranes of our memes” (Dennett, 1995). That memes arise out of genes does not make the position of human beings less special or the analogy less insightful. REFERENCES Dennett, Daniel. (1995). Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. New York: Simon and Schuster. ABOUT THE AUTHOR J. Jordyne Wu '03 is a double-major in philosophy and economics from Newton, Massachusetts. She is particularly interested in the philosophy of science and technology, including artificial intelligence and artificial life. 27