RE: memes defined operationally (from article)

From: Keith Henson (hkhenson@rogers.com)
Date: Thu 16 Jan 2003 - 00:41:17 GMT

  • Next message: Keith Henson: "Re: memes defined operationally (from article)"

    At 08:33 AM 15/01/03 -0800, you wrote:
    >Keith wrote:
    >
    ><<While I certainly agree that our minds are shaped by ideas with both
    >internal and external sources, I think calling ideas of a sort that are
    >never passed on (entirely internal) does damaged to the very concept of
    >memes.>>
    >
    >It makes about as much sense as not calling genes that are never passed on
    >genes.

    If you stir up a random mix of DNA bases and then destroy it, those are not genes.

    But virtually all chunks of DNA come about from a replication process. That makes them genes even if they are dead end replicators (like all the cells in your body except the germ line cells).

    Keith Henson

    =============================================================== 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 : Thu 16 Jan 2003 - 00:43:42 GMT