Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA03197 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 21 Mar 2000 17:13:50 GMT From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> Organization: Reborn Technology To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: objections to "memes" Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 16:50:41 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21] Content-Type: text/plain References: <Pine.SGI.4.10.10003210753490.9288066-100000@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> Message-Id: <00032117001101.00976@faichney> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, Robert Logan wrote:
<snip>
>For me quarks might or
>might not exist but using them in a model helped to explain many of the
>regularities of high energy scattering. All we know for sure is that SU(3)
>symmetry holds and that one can explain that in terms of quarks.
I guess we can say we know for sure that patterns of human behaviour replicate
or are replicated via imitation. Can we say that one can explain that in terms
of memes? Or can we only restate it using memetic terminology? (Exactly which
memetic terminology would depend on whether you think memes are in brains or
behaviour or both, but the explanation/restatement dichotomy remains in any
case. Doesn't it?)
>Whether
>quarks are a reality or a theoretical construct is a philosophical
>question that science can not address.
That just seems to beg to have "memes" substituted for "quarks".
-- Robin Faichney===============================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 : Tue Mar 21 2000 - 17:14:07 GMT