Genetic fitness is the measure of “win” we (and all other life) use. Since rationalists should win, if the sequences don’t help them win then they’re lost purposes.
Edit: OK, this was in fact quite a dumb comment. My apologies for this brainfart.
What JGWeissman said; see also the three posts listed under “Followup To” on that one. I know you’re not a fan of being told to “read the sequences” (not sure if that also applies to being referred to particular parts of the sequences), but this particular point is really not a difficult or controversial one.
That is a non-standard enough use of the term that it is not terribly useful for communication. If you want to analyze memes in terms of genes, it is best to think of them as symbiotes, where the memes are their own genes, and mutation and recombination happen in human minds. But their genes can’t reasonably be treated as our genes. The life-cycle is wrong.
That is the intended idea, yes. “Genetic”—under such usage would mean—“to do with heritable information”—and NOT the nucleic-acid centric “to do with heritable information stored in DNA”.
This would make all transmissible human culture “genetic”. If memes are a type of gene which is not made of DNA, then that throws quite a spanner into the terminology of many “genes” vs “environment” debates.
But their genes can’t reasonably be treated as our genes. The life-cycle is wrong.
Indeed—though that is actually the position of major theorists in the area, Boyd and Richerson.
They think that culture is part of the human extended genotype—despite, as you say, their life-cycles being totally different.
In: “Culture is Part of Human Biology Why the Superorganic Concept Serves the Human Sciences Badly”—where they lay out their philosophy—they say:
Culture is a part of human biology, as much a part as bipedal locomotion or thick enamel on our molars.
Who said they were supposed to?
Genetic fitness is the measure of “win” we (and all other life) use. Since rationalists should win, if the sequences don’t help them win then they’re lost purposes.
Edit: OK, this was in fact quite a dumb comment. My apologies for this brainfart.
We are not genetic fitness maximizers.
What JGWeissman said; see also the three posts listed under “Followup To” on that one. I know you’re not a fan of being told to “read the sequences” (not sure if that also applies to being referred to particular parts of the sequences), but this particular point is really not a difficult or controversial one.
That would be a fake utility function.
Speak for yourself!
If you define “genetic” to include memes. Memetic fitnesses are pretty important in understanding the behaviour of modern humans.
That is a non-standard enough use of the term that it is not terribly useful for communication. If you want to analyze memes in terms of genes, it is best to think of them as symbiotes, where the memes are their own genes, and mutation and recombination happen in human minds. But their genes can’t reasonably be treated as our genes. The life-cycle is wrong.
That is the intended idea, yes. “Genetic”—under such usage would mean—“to do with heritable information”—and NOT the nucleic-acid centric “to do with heritable information stored in DNA”.
This would make all transmissible human culture “genetic”. If memes are a type of gene which is not made of DNA, then that throws quite a spanner into the terminology of many “genes” vs “environment” debates.
Indeed—though that is actually the position of major theorists in the area, Boyd and Richerson.
They think that culture is part of the human extended genotype—despite, as you say, their life-cycles being totally different.
In: “Culture is Part of Human Biology Why the Superorganic Concept Serves the Human Sciences Badly”—where they lay out their philosophy—they say:
I think this is a pretty crazy position—relatively speaking.