From: Wade T.Smith (wade_smith@harvard.edu)
Date: Fri 01 Nov 2002 - 23:11:05 GMT
On Friday, November 1, 2002, at 05:49 , joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> With the difference that, in the case of mental memes, we are able to
> observe their effects, and are unable to logically, rationally or
> reasonably attribute them to any other possible causes.
That still sounds like apologia to me- theists tell us the effects of
their god is everywhere around us, in the very fact we are here. You
claim the same thing, only your god is the memeinthemind, whose supposed
effects, you say, are self-evident, and yet, you give up nothing of the
actual cause but conjecture based upon an interpretation of some
effects. And where is this inability to attribute cultural behavior to
anything other than a memeinthemind? There are reasonable, logical, and
rational explanations that have no need of a meme, just as there are
rational explanations for the universe that have no need of gods, and
yet these explanations look at the same effects.
Your memeinthemind model is an interpretation, with sketchy (and itself
interpreted) evidence, from fledgling observations of brains at
function. We have a long way to go before we can recognize causes in the
brain, much less find discrete operatives in a mind.
- Wade
===============================================================
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 01 Nov 2002 - 23:14:59 GMT