Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA02378 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 9 Feb 2001 21:06:18 GMT Message-ID: <005501c092e0$f2711240$9306bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <20010208201954.AAA9140@camailp.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.215]> Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 22:39:59 +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 Wade,
You wrote,
> That there is such a mechanism in use by a mind is not proof that such a
> mechanism was part of the development of a mind, any more than a traffic
> light is part of the construction of an automobile.
<< So, why would a mind use/ consider to use such a mechanism if not as
a part of its own development !?
What would be the bias for taking on such a consideration in its design !?
Best,
Kenneth
( I am, because we are)
===============================================================
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 : Fri Feb 09 2001 - 21:08:19 GMT