Re: Criticisms of Blackmore's approach

From: Robin Faichney (robin@faichney.demon.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 12 2000 - 15:20:14 BST

  • Next message: Bill Spight: "Re: Criticisms of Blackmore's approach"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA13560 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:17:05 +0100
    From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk>
    Organization: Reborn Technology
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: Criticisms of Blackmore's approach
    Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:20:14 +0100
    X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21]
    Content-Type: text/plain
    References: <20000612124755.AAA2190@camailp.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.215]>
    Message-Id: <00061215244905.00467@faichney>
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Wade T.Smith wrote:
    >
    >And yes, there is something, IMHO, to the notion that there is a
    >value-added to imitation in the human, where language seems to be the
    >expressed component, and where perhaps, the meme could be useful. But
    >where to put it?

    The meme is what direct behavioural imitation and symbolic
    communication have in common. It is what replicates in both cases.
    Very simple. But I've said things like that to you before, Wade.
    What's your problem with that formulation?

    --
    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 : Mon Jun 12 2000 - 16:17:50 BST