Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA16206 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 16 Nov 2000 07:43:16 GMT Message-ID: <A4400389479FD3118C9400508B0FF2300410D8@DELTA.newhouse.akzonobel.nl> From: "Gatherer, D. (Derek)" <D.Gatherer@organon.nhe.akzonobel.nl> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Researcher finds sites of brain activated by romance Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:38:28 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Mark:
I didn't assert the '4 bits' of neural tissue were a meme. My question
'evidence of the neural-meme?' was in the spirit of particle accelerator
physicists saying they find evidence of a 'Higgins particle.' The
physicists don't expect to 'see' the Higgins particle, only its tracks.
What if the 4 bits of neural tissue were activated by pictures of Marilyn
Monroe, President Clinton or Pope John-Paul?
Derek:
I don't see what your driving at. Do you mean that _any_ brain activity is
evidence of memes? Say for instance a brick falls on my head and I feel
pain. That pain is detectable at the neurophysiological level. The PET
scan pattern is evidence of my pain. But that doesn't make my pain a meme.
If you show me a picture of somebody, that might evoke all manner of
emotional responses from me. Are those memes too?
===============================================================
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 : Thu Nov 16 2000 - 07:44:56 GMT