Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA20582 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 9 Feb 2000 16:27:26 GMT From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: meaning in memetics Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 08:26:04 -0800 Message-ID: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJGEEOEFAA.richard@brodietech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.4.21.0002091101290.13950-100000@poirot.umd.edu> Importance: Normal Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Lawrence wrote:
<<Genes MAY be a useful metaphor to push our thinking on memes (though my
view is that it has overstayed its usefulness), but that is all it is, a
metaphor. If we find memetic patterns and dynamics that are dissimilar to
those of genes, we should not hesitate to recognize them, rather than try
and shoe-horn memes into a genes-derived structure.>>
Right you are. I think this is one of people's biggest stumbling blocks in
understanding memetics... an all-or-nothing buy-in of the meme/gene analogy.
One particular part of the analogy that doesn't work well is embryonic
development and the genotype/phenotype distinction. Memes are selected for
in different ways, not simply by being ingredients in an end-product
organism that has differential reproductive fitness.
Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com www.memecentral.com/rbrodie.htm
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 09 2000 - 16:27:28 GMT