Non-Living Replicators: Let's just list as many as we can!

[blutoski]

Is this considered self-replicating?

No: that's "Freakursion".

 

[John Hewitt]

He also mentions memes--

Aren't those self replicators? religion? Computer viruses. They need a host, like viruses...and these all seem to need human intervention along the way--but they can count as non-living replicators can't they. By non-living replicator I'm going with the notion of things that are not alive but they can ad do propagate themselves when the conditions are right.

He did use the term meme but not for any good reason.

Had he mentioned ideas or concepts - yes - I agree they could be seen as replicating but those words would have led to Popper's or Toulmin's work. As a term, memes never had any prior general usage, were never given decent formal definitions and never really added anything. In other words, memetics is junk science.

 

[jsfisher]

How do you differentiate a “left sock” from a “right sock”?

That's easy: After the other sock has vanished, the remaining sock is left.

All punning aside, though, I have a theory about that. Sock disappearances are usually associated with clothes dryers. I hypothesize the right sock attempts an escape but gets caught in the lint filter.

 

[Dave1001]

He did use the term meme but not for any good reason.

Had he mentioned ideas or concepts - yes - I agree they could be seen as replicating but those words would have led to Popper's or Toulmin's work. As a term, memes never had any prior general usage, were never given decent formal definitions and never really added anything. In other words, memetics is junk science.

I think meme is a useful distinction from ideas, because in the popular understanding ideas often have owners ("my idea"). Concept seems more particularized than meme, for example most people wouldn't think of the principles of christianity as a "concept". So I think meme is a useful word to have around, and not completely redundant to other similar popular words.

 

[John Hewitt]

I think meme is a useful distinction from ideas, because in the popular understanding ideas often have owners ("my idea"). Concept seems more particularized than meme, for example most people wouldn't think of the principles of christianity as a "concept". So I think meme is a useful word to have around, and not completely redundant to other similar popular words.

Well you can discuss niceties of developed usage if you like but the point of introducing new, "jargon" scientific words is to have the freedom to give them precisely defined meanings. Some other usage may be evolving but that is not what a jargon word should be doing, it should syick to its definition. Dawkins introduced the word and intended it to have a meaning as a unit of information analogous to the gene.
I cannot see how your usage, or anybody else's, makes it analogous to a gene. Far too much of memetics seems to revolve around a discussion of what people mean by a word that was, supposedly, defined from the outset.

 

[Jekyll]

I always thought that was an example of fractalhasslehof.

Frasslehof .

 

[Brainache]

cigarette butts. They require a human nicotine addiction, but they reproduce at an alarming rate around here.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Continents.

 

[Wowbagger]

Or perhaps "terran bio-life" is not as special, separate, and/or rare as some seem to believe?

Could be. Could be.

Thunderstorm cells. Under certain weather conditions, the evaporation of the water left behind from the rainfall seeds the formation of new storms a few hours or a day later.

Excellent!

Stars. Supernovas create the pressure waves that initiate star formation in interstellar gas clouds.

Ah ha! Replication at the solar system scale: I like it!

Quanta of emitted elecromagnetic energy in the optical cavity of a stimulated-emission-of-radiation device (laser, maser, graser, etc.)

Well, maybe. I got to look more into that one.

Fire has already been mentioned, but it's a particularly good example. A fire with the right kind of fuel generates burning debris as well as updrafts that can carry the debris to new sites.

Great points!

chain letters
email worms

Some very basic examples, but they qualify.

yawns

Well, maybe. (I know there was a recent thread on their contagiousness.)

potentially anionic polymerizations. although this is just a reaction that will maintain an active center until impurities are introduced.

Something else to read up on.

He also mentions memes--

Aren't those self replicators? religion? Computer viruses. They need a host, like viruses...and these all seem to need human intervention along the way--but they can count as non-living replicators can't they. By non-living replicator I'm going with the notion of things that are not alive but they can ad do propagate themselves when the conditions are right.

Memes need a host, but each one counts as a unit of replication. Learning how to fold a sheet of paper into a boat can be passed on, mimetically, to other people, who can pass it on to others. Sometimes, with mutations along the way.

a run in pantyhose...

That's stretching it! (get it?)

Is this considered self-replicating?

Thank you for giving me a new source of nightmares. I was starting to run out.

Pretty much any fully saturated or supersaturated solution will at some point begin to grow crystals of the material that is dissolved in it if a crystal of the material is dropped in - and sometimes simply if it is just disturbed. For the just saturated solutions, the new crystal(s) dissolve but have the dissolved portion constantly replaced (if you remove the crystal after awhile, the crystal you have removed has ions/atoms in it that are not the specific ones it originally had. This can be verified if you make up - grow - a crystal using a concentration of a less common isotope of the atoms - one or more - that is a bit greater than naturally found .)
And, yes, crystals are self-replicating non-living things.

Oooo! Something to experiment with!

cigarette butts. They require a human nicotine addiction, but they reproduce at an alarming rate around here.

But, do cigarette butts induce the replication of other cigarette butts?
I guess you could argue "social pressure to smoke" replicates, but I think that counts as a meme. (and a rather nasty one, at that.)

Continents.

Can you be more specific on how continents could self replicate?

 

[chance]

Would any catalytic chemical reaction qualify, i.e. you have two chemicals X and Y, and when in the presents of a catalyst turn into chemicals A and B?

 

[Wowbagger]

Would any catalytic chemical reaction qualify, i.e. you have two chemicals X and Y, and when in the presents of a catalyst turn into chemicals A and B?

To qualify, the new presence of chemicals A and B would have to induce the catalysts of turn more X and Y into A and B.

 

[The Atheist]

I see you've hit thunderstorms. Isn't the water cycle self-replicating? Rain > flow > evaporate > rain?

 

[Wowbagger]

Isn't the water cycle self-replicating? Rain > flow > evaporate > rain?

Water cycles repeat. But, water cycles do not induce the creation of other water cycles.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Non-Living?

Boy Bands

 

[articulett]

He did use the term meme but not for any good reason.

Had he mentioned ideas or concepts - yes - I agree they could be seen as replicating but those words would have led to Popper's or Toulmin's work. As a term, memes never had any prior general usage, were never given decent formal definitions and never really added anything. In other words, memetics is junk science.

I disagree with this. He liked memes to the sort of idea equivalent of genes. It's easy to see how ideas spread and evolve and grow into "memeplexes"--religions, regimes, technological advances, fads, "common knowledge", etc. His point was that "ideas" vie for space in a brain similarly to the ways genes vie for selective advantage. What sorts of things stick in your head and why--jingles...the idea that "faith is good"...the notion that "it's arrogant to question god"...language is obviously a memeplex. Just as cells make bodies make organisms make ecosystems so to do memes make symbols (letters) that make words that make sentences that make paragraphs that make books that make books that make libraries etc. Memes are a tool for speaking of the evolution of an idea--whereas genes are a tool for understanding the evolution of an organism. It's not a pseudoscience --though those who dislike Dawkins because he is an atheist (they never seem to have actually read anything by him) are fond of calling it a pseudoscience just like they try to liken scientific evidence to faith and "evoltionists" or "atheists" to religionists in regards to what is true.

Surely you understand that most "sytems" evolve"-technology evolves--languages evolves--the body of knowledge that humans have gathered about the world evolves, planets evolve, life forms evolve, thinking evolves, and solar systems evolves. All of the above is readily understandable by most--but if you want to speak specifically about what they were before, it helps to have terms to describe their components. Meme is just a term to describe that. We have terms to describe technological advancements --bytes to gigabates, storage size, processor speeds, memory--we understand that they are tools--but who would classify them as "pseudoscience"

Urban legends evolve, myths evolve, this forum evolves. Such things may evolve because they are useful or fun or memorable or through repetition. Meme was term coined by Dawkins and spawned by many others because it was a useful way of talking about the evolution of an idea. Memes have selective fitness the same way genes do.

 

[articulett]

I think meme is a useful distinction from ideas, because in the popular understanding ideas often have owners ("my idea"). Concept seems more particularized than meme, for example most people wouldn't think of the principles of christianity as a "concept". So I think meme is a useful word to have around, and not completely redundant to other similar popular words.

I agree--it's the replicating part of an idea. Washing your hands before a meal is a good idea because of microorganisms. That can be said in lots of different ways and lots of different languages, but it's a meme that spreads because it encourages sanitary practices and it works pretty damn well for limiting germ spreading. It's an idea that spread based on germ theory and studies done during the early 1900s.

Chain letters have a replicating meme that is similar to religion, I think ("believe this and get others to believe and good things will happen to you--bad things will happen to you if you doubt".) Any belief system that utilizes this meme has a good chance at spreading. Idea isn't specific enough when it comes to "what it is" that makes a notion spread and/or grow.

Of course religion has multiple ways of duplicating itself. It tells you to go forth and multiply (and god doesn't give you more than you can handle) so it spreads via genes and then directly through the indoctrination of these vectors with the religious memes of their parents and all the heritable traits that make one prone to being a "believer".

 

[articulett]

I always thought that was an example of fractalhasslehof.

Would you call the person who posted it a "hassholeoff"?

There are some things that one should avoid looking at--an eclipse for one--and that thing for another. If only I had enemies that I could inflict it upon with some clever meme...like "whatever you do--don't click this"-- You could put it at a fundie site...and claim it's the proverbial apple from the tree of knowledge and see how many people would damn mankind for daring to bite from the tree.

 

[John Hewitt]

I disagree with this. He liked memes to the sort of idea equivalent of genes. It's easy to see how ideas spread and evolve and grow into "memeplexes"--religions, regimes, technological advances, fads, "common knowledge", etc. His point was that "ideas" vie for space in a brain similarly to the ways genes vie for selective advantage. What sorts of things stick in your head and why--jingles...the idea that "faith is good"...the notion that "it's arrogant to question god"...language is obviously a memeplex. Just as cells make bodies make organisms make ecosystems so to do memes make symbols (letters) that make words that make sentences that make paragraphs that make books that make books that make libraries etc. Memes are a tool for speaking of the evolution of an idea--whereas genes are a tool for understanding the evolution of an organism. It's not a pseudoscience --though those who dislike Dawkins because he is an atheist (they never seem to have actually read anything by him) are fond of calling it a pseudoscience just like they try to liken scientific evidence to faith and "evoltionists" or "atheists" to religionists in regards to what is true.

Surely you understand that most "sytems" evolve"-technology evolves--languages evolves--the body of knowledge that humans have gathered about the world evolves, planets evolve, life forms evolve, thinking evolves, and solar systems evolves. All of the above is readily understandable by most--but if you want to speak specifically about what they were before, it helps to have terms to describe their components. Meme is just a term to describe that. We have terms to describe technological advancements --bytes to gigabates, storage size, processor speeds, memory--we understand that they are tools--but who would classify them as "pseudoscience"

Urban legends evolve, myths evolve, this forum evolves. Such things may evolve because they are useful or fun or memorable or through repetition. Meme was term coined by Dawkins and spawned by many others because it was a useful way of talking about the evolution of an idea. Memes have selective fitness the same way genes do.

I disagree but I don't think I want to pursue this. I note, however, that the journal of memetics seemed to have died becasue of the number of people who share my doubts.
I would be more interested in your opinions on two related questions
1. Are genes replicators?
2. Are replicators a necessary and/or sufficient condition for evolution?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Can you be more specific on how continents could self replicate?

Well, they bump and grind and then reproduce by fission.
What are you- some sort of prude?

 

[Wowbagger]

I disagree but I don't think I want to pursue this. I note, however, that the journal of memetics seemed to have died becasue of the number of people who share my doubts.
I would be more interested in your opinions on two related questions
1. Are genes replicators?
2. Are replicators a necessary and/or sufficient condition for evolution?

Memes can be considered replicators, considering the fact that their very nature enduces their own replication.

Genes are replicators, obviously, because their very structure enduces their own replication, in the enviornment their ancestral variations helped establish. Read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins (second ed. or later), and you will learn why genes are the "ultimate" replicator of lifeforms

Replicators with any material that natural selection can work with, is what is necessary for evolution to take place. Crystals do not have any: too ordered. But, genes do, for example.

Well, they bump and grind and then reproduce by fission.

For some reason, that sounds a little far fetched, but it could work. I am going to seriously have to pencil in some time to research this stuff.

What are you- some sort of prude?

I'm the one with an academic interest. You are the one who seems to have made yourself an expert on this subject.