Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA05609 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 22 Mar 2000 15:16:07 GMT Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:14:36 -0500 From: Robert Logan <logan@physics.utoronto.ca> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: objections to "memes" In-Reply-To: <200003220004.TAA18259@mail4.lig.bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.10.10003221012040.8585227-100000@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk>
snip
> > 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
> It is not all imitation; one can listen to and follow instructions
> without doing anything that the instructor is doing (only doing what
> (s)he is saying).
Point well taken
===============================================================
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 Mar 22 2000 - 15:16:21 GMT