Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA04043 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 4 Feb 2001 15:11:55 GMT Message-ID: <002001c08ec1$8dba4100$6708bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <20010120045907.AAA22165@camailp.harvard.edu@[204.96.32.113]> Subject: Re: phenotypic plasticity and ontogeny Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:43:37 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Hi all,
Watch out Joe, 163 is next....
I don 't get it folks !!
I know it isn 't quite the same like the ideas I do propose, but what Wade
says here below is in my book close to it.
How in another way woud you see how the meme would come into the
progeny if not along the germline !?
To plant, having sex...and whatever is part of genetics, right !?
I know, I know it is just a saying...
To conclude that the progeny will be recognizable as part of my me(me(s)),
well we have to look for common characteristics, have we not !?
So where is the difference between what Wade is proposing and what I have
in mind !? Do we have it here about the Lamarckian acquired characteristics,
or what...!?
I am willing to set my ideas straight if you all do...maybe it is due to my
native
language, which is Dutch, but anyway, saying that a gift produces a reaction
based on the receiver's contextual understanding of the situation, see post
by
Mark Mills on 20 january 2000 for this, well in my book is that Memetic
info based along a genetic hardline. That the sign is convoluted, like Mark
says, with her contexual understanding of things, gives me the conviction
that in a sense you are all thinking the same things, but for one reason or
the other do not dare to speak out freely...
If my ideas are wrong, ok! and I can live with that, but it doesn 't mean
that there is no possibility they are ' right ' somewhere...
And I would kill myself by the prospect not to have tried...
Is my mind dirty or what...!?
All the best to you all,
Kenneth
( I am, because we are)
> Thanks for all of that. Highly interesting.
I don't think there is genetic versus memetic sex.
For me to get a meme distributed, I have to
> convince someone else to 'birth' it. I have to have 'sex' with them to
> plant the meme, and hope that the progeny will be recognizable as part of
> my me(me). So, I'm more and more seeing the meme as a special functional
> unit of behavior- a tool of the neural system that develops from the
> phenotypic plastic. And I see it as a 'sexual' element (and, so far, only
> as the 'male' element) of communication.
<< Great stuff....!!!
===============================================================
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 : Sun Feb 04 2001 - 15:16:30 GMT