I like your analogy quite a bit, though interestingly, my mental model had always been different.
The argument I leapt to many years ago was that living things contain the means of reproduction and "re-design" within themselves (i.e., DNA, cell division, etc.) while mechanical items like the watch do not. They do require a maker or assembler of some sort
You could argue that a rock does not contain a means or reproduction in itself, but if you considered it just a broken off part of "the land", then you would see means of self-creation and re-design via sedimentation, volcanic activity, etc. Similarly, it would be difficult to understand sexual reproduction from my now dead broken off toenail, you could figure it out if you looked at my body as a whole.
Yes, you're pointing at one way that the gene-meme analogy breaks down.
One way to rescue it is to say that we're not considering the physical objects but their underlying memes (ideas, designs, etc.), which do have properties allowing them to reproduce and mutate. The meme of a watch, for example, has the property that it allows people to tell the time, which is useful, so the meme will be transmitted from brain to brain, and occasionally be changed by a particular brain. A physical watch embodies the meme, but isn't directly the meme.
But the mechanisms for the reproduction and mutation of memes are quite distinct from DNA and cellular machinery, and outside of a few "pure" cases like chain letters (which include a sentence like "send this email to 10 people or you'll be cursed with bad luck"), the properties allowing memetic reproduction and mutation are rarely well-defined, which has led many people to criticize the concept.
I meant it mostly tongue in cheek (at a certain point examining creating a universe vs creating a simulation of a universe but w/ consciousness starts to be a distinction w/ out a difference) but I think that a simulation always felt like a group project to me so if "creators" is more likely than "creator" that feels like a little bit of evidence for "simulation"
I love the idea of the polytheism of the watchmaker analogy. It actually fits in with the questions raised by Blake (whether he meant it that way or not) allowing me to forgive what I consider the worst slant rhyme in famous poetry.
eye and symmetry. Unless back then eye was pronounce "ee" or symmetry was pronounced "sim a try." My own poetry uses a lot of slant rhymes, but this particular one has always made me wince. Maybe it is just a true rhyme that hasn't aged well. Google seems inconclusive about the pronunciation back then.
Anything duplicated, mutated and selected eventually evolves. As it turns out, this is true for so many things it's actually mind-boggling.
Thank you for this article, it's a very pleasant read. The idea of technological evolution, despite making perfect sense, is not one that is always depicted elegantly. You made it very accessible.
Nowadays, when someone find a strange object or see a strange light in the sky or discover a strange symbol in their field, they think it is an alien making! Evolution! From God to space neighbor!
I like your analogy quite a bit, though interestingly, my mental model had always been different.
The argument I leapt to many years ago was that living things contain the means of reproduction and "re-design" within themselves (i.e., DNA, cell division, etc.) while mechanical items like the watch do not. They do require a maker or assembler of some sort
You could argue that a rock does not contain a means or reproduction in itself, but if you considered it just a broken off part of "the land", then you would see means of self-creation and re-design via sedimentation, volcanic activity, etc. Similarly, it would be difficult to understand sexual reproduction from my now dead broken off toenail, you could figure it out if you looked at my body as a whole.
Anyway... thanks for expanding my thinking...
Yes, you're pointing at one way that the gene-meme analogy breaks down.
One way to rescue it is to say that we're not considering the physical objects but their underlying memes (ideas, designs, etc.), which do have properties allowing them to reproduce and mutate. The meme of a watch, for example, has the property that it allows people to tell the time, which is useful, so the meme will be transmitted from brain to brain, and occasionally be changed by a particular brain. A physical watch embodies the meme, but isn't directly the meme.
But the mechanisms for the reproduction and mutation of memes are quite distinct from DNA and cellular machinery, and outside of a few "pure" cases like chain letters (which include a sentence like "send this email to 10 people or you'll be cursed with bad luck"), the properties allowing memetic reproduction and mutation are rarely well-defined, which has led many people to criticize the concept.
more support for the simulation hypothesis
How so? I could see it go both ways
I meant it mostly tongue in cheek (at a certain point examining creating a universe vs creating a simulation of a universe but w/ consciousness starts to be a distinction w/ out a difference) but I think that a simulation always felt like a group project to me so if "creators" is more likely than "creator" that feels like a little bit of evidence for "simulation"
I love the idea of the polytheism of the watchmaker analogy. It actually fits in with the questions raised by Blake (whether he meant it that way or not) allowing me to forgive what I consider the worst slant rhyme in famous poetry.
Please do regale us with the rhyme and why it is so bad!
eye and symmetry. Unless back then eye was pronounce "ee" or symmetry was pronounced "sim a try." My own poetry uses a lot of slant rhymes, but this particular one has always made me wince. Maybe it is just a true rhyme that hasn't aged well. Google seems inconclusive about the pronunciation back then.
Anything duplicated, mutated and selected eventually evolves. As it turns out, this is true for so many things it's actually mind-boggling.
Thank you for this article, it's a very pleasant read. The idea of technological evolution, despite making perfect sense, is not one that is always depicted elegantly. You made it very accessible.
Nowadays, when someone find a strange object or see a strange light in the sky or discover a strange symbol in their field, they think it is an alien making! Evolution! From God to space neighbor!