The Royal "We" (was: RE: What Meaning Means)

From: Tim Rhodes (proftim@speakeasy.org)
Date: Mon 19 Jun 2006 - 07:42:06 GMT

  • Next message: Derek Gatherer: "Re: presentation"

    Ted wrote:

    > If we can't define memes, we don't know what it is that's diffusing and
    > adapting. All our models of distribution and frequency have no meaning
    > because we don't know what they refer to.

    Sorry, but I don't know who "we" signifies here.

    Most of us here know quite well what is referred to by the term "meme"
    (though we may squabble a tad over the details now and again).

    But to your larger point: If your supposition were to be true it would, likewise, imply that heredity could never have been understood without first gaining a clear & precise understanding of DNA.

    Nevertheless (I hate to tell you) we have thousand of years of evidence predating Watson & Crick -- from horse breeding alone! -- that can easily refute any such simplistic suppositions about knowledge acquisition & application in the big ol' messy real world we all live in.

    Think about it for a minute....

    -Tim Rhodes

    "A horse is a horse, of course, of course!"
    -Mr. Ed (CBS, 1961-64)

    =============================================================== 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 : Mon 19 Jun 2006 - 08:07:47 GMT