Re: electric meme bombs

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu 17 Oct 2002 - 23:56:05 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: electric meme bombs"

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >From: joedees@bellsouth.net
    > >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk, fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    > >Subject: Re: electric meme bombs
    > >Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:19:07 -0500
    > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > >From: joedees@bellsouth.net
    > > > >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > > > >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk, fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    > > > >Subject: Re: electric meme bombs
    > > > >Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:17:49 -0500
    > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 12:04 , Scott Chase wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > Wade= externalist beme
    > > > > > > You= internalist meme-ory
    > > > > > > Pink unicorn= ???
    > > > > >
    > > > > > You know, the usual variant of the Pink Unicorn is the
    > > > > > Invisible Pink Unicorn, so '???' is perhaps the best equation.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Of course, neither Joe nor I are exclusively internalist or
    > > > > > externalist, we just rock our respective boats in different
    > > > > > yaws.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I find the identifiability of behavior-only memes to be their
    > > > > > chief delight, and the total non-identifiability of internal
    > > > > > memes to be their primary sourness. Joe thinks they can and
    > > > > > will be found. So, yeah, I think he kind of wants to play with
    > > > > > the unicorns, but I don't think he is a virgin, so they won't
    > > > > > talk to him.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Pink unicorns, visible or invisible, while dramatically
    > > > > > allowable, are not within nature to pursue.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > - Wade
    > > > > >
    > > > >We haven't popped their equine cherries yet, but, PET-scan-wise,
    > > > >we have advanced beond first base, and perhaps to second. and
    > > > >that is all that's necessary to establish a base path.
    > > > >
    > > > There was some fancy equipment used by the apparition chasers on
    > > > "Poltergeist" and "Ghostbusters" too? What's your point in
    > > > co-opting P.E.T. scanning as support?
    > > >
    > >The facts that 1) it's actual, as opposed to fanciful, equipment, and
    > >2) experimental findings utilizing it do support my position.
    > >
    > Especially when you assume your conclusion (ie- existence of
    > meme-ories).
    >
    First one theorizes, then one checks for evidentiary support or disconfirmation. So far, it''s been all the first, and none of the second.
    >
    > _________________________________________________________________
    > Broadband? Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access.
    > http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 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 2.1.5 : Fri 18 Oct 2002 - 00:01:04 GMT