Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T21:04:57.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Is symbolic inheritance similar to genetic inheritance?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2007

Luc Steels
Affiliation:
Computer Science Department, University of Brussels, 1050 Brussels, Belgium. steels@arti.vub.ac.be arti.vub.ac.be/~steels

Abstract

Jablonka & Lamb's (J&L's) book is refreshing in that it debunks the exclusively gene-centered approach used these days to explain almost anything about life and human behavior. The book is very accessible and most convincing when the authors discuss biological theories of genetic and epigenetic inheritance, but it does not shy away from the more slippery terrain of behavioral and symbolic inheritance, and specifically the origins of language. But is the analogy appropriate?

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. J. (1985) Culture and the evolutionary process. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2000) Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Dautenhahn, K. & Nehaniv, C. L. (2002) Imitation in animals and artifacts. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jablonka, E. & Lamb, M. J. (2005) Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Steels, L. (2004) Analogies between genome and language evolution. In: Artificial life IX, ed. Pollack, J., pp. 200206. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szathmáry, E. (2006) The origins of replicators and reproducers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 361:1761–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed