Just an Other Comment on Memes

As the discussion evolves into a vivid example of fauceir, in this case meme, evolution, I try to send an other comment which I copied here.

@John Dinkelspiel
I watched Susan Blackmore’s talk on memes, and in fact, she is extending the concept of memes towards Fauceir Theory by introducing more types of fauceirs namely the ‘teme’, technological meme, but you cannot name them all. Fauceirs are innumerable. Even replicating fauceirs are abundant and they show a tremendous variation in mechanisms of replication. You cannot even name all the mechanisms but you can classify them by precision and resource consumption. Mato explained these parameters in his first Fauceir lecture, available at YouTube.

Surprisingly enough, I find myself defending Meme Theory. Though I agree with you that the meme concept is vague at best, and though I disagree with Susan Blackmore that it can be improved simply by copying and varying, still I feel there is a fundamental predication made in Susan’s talk that comes true. We shy away from admitting it. I outlined it more precisely in my blog entry.

Grown up in the countryside, I know how people who live in big cities for generations loose elementary instincts to survive in the wilderness. (The movie Crocodile Dundee is no exaggeration.)

You may want to counter that this can be learned again based on the Madagascar 2 slogan “If you make it in New Your you can make it everywhere”, but I vehemently disagree. These instincts are lost and gone for ever. I wonder what experienced rangers in Arizona would say about it.

There is nothing scary about that. As a matter of fact, fauceirs, manipulate fauceirs since time immemorial. Fauceir-fauceir-interactions is the prerequisite of evolution.

@Jim Brennan
I guess you compare parasitic memes with fast food. Well, all fauceirs, including memes, can evolve into parasitic behavior. Each host fauceirs has to defend numerous such attacks.

@Graham Macdonald
Well, genes are an abstract concept too. If you took a stretch of DNA into a test tube, it would not work as a gene. A gene needs its context, the environment where it can take action. The same holds true for a meme. If you wrote some source code on a paper, it would not work either. Fauceirs are abstract entities and they have always to be studies apart from its physical representation in the context in which they have evolved.

You may counter that a gene can be represented only by a certain DNA sequence while a piece of software can be transmitted by various forms. That’s not true. The same gene is not always the same stretch of DNA. It may include synonymous variations. Moreover, as some organisms or organelles use a slightly different genetic code, the same gene can be coded differently at an other place.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

An other Comment on Memes

This is a re-posted comment on an article to be found here.

Thank you for this crash course in meme theory and its historical background. I couldn’t afford neither time nor money to read Dawkin’s books, and I don’t think it is necessary any more as so many repercussions are available for free in the meantime.

Please allow to summarize this article as follows:
Definition: Meme is a specific psychological fauceir that exhibits replicator properties.

The invention of memes in times of bursting information technology was consequential. The similarities between memes and genes are striking. Both posses unique replicator properties, but replication needs a complex machinery to take place. In case of genes, this is accomplished by a host of proteins; in case of memes, storage and communication devices are needed. And namely these devices developed rapidly in the second half of the last century, so memes became abundant and obvious.

As with gene theory of evolution, the meme theory’s problem remains that all the plausible explanations of evolution require that complex replicator machinery at work. Fauceir Theory easily can solve this problem by extending the study of evolution to fauceirs that do not provide replicator properties.

Fauceir Theory is around for about the same time as meme theory, and it explains evolution in even more general and abstract terms. As with meme theory, people seem not to be terribly keen on it. Fauceir Theory seems not to be an infectious meme actually 😉 but this is not surprising or even disappointing. On the contrary, it can be predicted by fauceir rules that an advanced fauceir, an advanced meme in this case, needs time to gain acceptance.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Cell Theory versus Organismal Theory

Though cell theory is found in wikipedia, regrettably, there is no entry on organismal theory. Instead, I found these websites kind of instructive:

The difference between these two theories is best characterized by Sachs’, a proponent of organismal theory, own words who claimed: “The plant forms cells, the cells do not form plants.” One may understand the inversion as the slogan of cell theory.

Now understanding evolution, we well know that unicellular organisms came first. Next multicellular organisms appeared whose cells further differentiated into specific tissues, organs, and organ systems. Still there are some species of fungi that can be understood as a large single cell with multiple nuclei. Also even in multicellular plants, cells are not separated entirely from each other. Their cytoplasm remains kind of interconnected by plasmodesmata.

On the other hand, in animals all cells are tightly interconnected too. Their growth is regulated and the functions is controlled by chemical (hormones, cytokines) or physical (electric currents, mechanical pressure) signals. The cardinal argument of the cell theory proponents that cells can survive without an organisms holds only if cell culture mimics all the conditions natural environment. Also it is nor so easy to take a single cell from an animal and clone a new organism because somatic mutations and imprintings may have occurred to this single cell. In other words the cloned animal inherits all the information the parental organisms conveyed to this cell during lifetime.

Fauceir hierarchy

This puzzle can be solved by the fauceir approach. Cells, tissues, organs, and organisms are all fauceirs. Though they have different functions and properties, they have common ones, too, and they follow the same rule of fauceir evolution.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.