Tim Tyler: Against replicator terminology

A video discussing the idea that the formulations of evolution that build on the idea of a "replicator" have some serious problems - and should probably be abandoned.

Transcript: http://alife.co.uk/essays/against_replicator_terminology/

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• replicator
• terminology

[deductivist]

@tmtyler I think the problem with such a definition would be that the system which makes copies of itself is reliant on the environment to successfully produce those copies. Example: Cells don't magically duplicate - they need food. So what is the replicator? Is it the cell, or is it the cell and all parts of the environment which contribute (in even the smallest way) to the manufacturing of a copy? Good article, btw. Thanks

[tmtyler]

@deductivist Another perspective is that replicators copy themselves. Replicands are what gets copied. Evolution is based on replicands - not replicators. See "The Replicator: A Misnomer" by Mario Vaneechoutte.

[deductivist]

@deductivist ....and of course, there is a *degree* to which an entity is a replicator that is based on how *much* it causally contributes to its own copying in a given environment.

The concept of a gene lacks these details, and so is not as illuminating.

[deductivist]

I prefer to define a replicator following David Deutsch (The Fabric of Reality, page 172): A replicator is any entity which, if present in a certain type of environment, will cause that environment to make copies of it.

[xXAkridXx]

jjsaid, why not state an actual counter-argument then, Instead of just flaming?