Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Genes, memes and the third replicator

  1. Aug 4, 2009 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 4, 2009 #2
    It's more like a combination of pseudo-scientific biology with philosophy, but not computer science. To be honest, I find the arguments in this report to be extremely weak, and there are so many points of contention I have with the article that I think it's overall validity is too low to make it worth my time to go over those issues specifically.
     
  4. Aug 4, 2009 #3

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Their mistake, to call learning "copying". We do not "copy' information from one human to another, each person has to learn the information. The vehicle used to transport the information is neither here nor there. The amount of information is not of concern either, no human is capable of learning every bit of information available. This person sounds paranoid and a bit flaky.
     
  5. Aug 4, 2009 #4
    It seems you are critiquing Richard Dawkins' meme theory, not Blackmore's observations (which is all Blackmore can claim to be making). However, what she is talking about is real. Nanotechnology has the potential to create self-replicating entities. Although I don't believe it has happened yet, it's quite reasonable to expect it can happen.

    http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/selfRep.html
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2009
  6. Aug 4, 2009 #5
    The New Scientist magazine has a penchant for severely flawed articles.
     
  7. Aug 4, 2009 #6

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No, Dawkins is talking about culture. This person is out in left field, without a mitt.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Genes, memes and the third replicator
  1. The Irony of the Meme (Replies: 13)

Loading...