Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA01213 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 8 Mar 2001 01:27:43 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010307192147.007fc900@mailhost.rongenet.sk.ca> X-Sender: hawkeye@mailhost.rongenet.sk.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 19:21:47 -0600 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk, memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Lloyd Robertson <hawkeye@rongenet.sk.ca> Subject: Re: Are there any memes out there? In-Reply-To: <3AA616C7.956EAD7C@bioinf.man.ac.uk> References: <20010306224836.AAA20739@camailp.harvard.edu@[205.240.180.70]> <20010307004616.A1476@reborntechnology.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Interesting, until recently I was of the opinion that memes existed both
inside and outside the head, in different forms. Now I am tending to
believe that memes do not exist in either place - artifacts, behaviors and
neural patterning are all phenotypes. What do you think?
Lloyd
At 11:08 AM 07/03/01 +0000, Chris Taylor wrote:
>Interesting that Robin should mention the point of view that everything
>is (potentially) a meme. I held (uh-oh) that opinion for ages - up until
>yesterday in fact, when for no reason I completely flipped around to the
>view where there are no memes outside heads at all (puctuated
>equilibrium anyone?). Anything can potentially *induce* a meme - any
>artifact, or behaviour in another, but there are no memes 'out there'
>only memetic effects (i.e. effects of memes via their actor hosts).
>
>This depends on us never 'seeing' the world, only our internal model,
>updated by our senses; transferance of ideas works more like an
>induction coil than anything else (although one should also take account
>of the fact that no two heads ever hold exactly the 'same' meme). Now I
>know that memetics as it has come to be defined is mostly an
>epidemiological study of the pattern of spread of information through
>diverse environments, but where does that leave me?
>
>What do I call the study of the life in the mind?
>
>Cheers, Chris.
>
>BTW with Rorschach blots, the reason they're so vague is cos we're so
>complex, and that makes them only semi-useful as a tool. However the
>value is in being able to observe a new selective mode in operation;
>it's like leaving a brand new food source of form of shelter (etc.) in
>an environment and seeing which of the available species are going to
>move (evolutionarily) to exploit it. The blots, although rather generic,
>favour some things (memories, prejudices) over others. All this is easy
>to explain if our heads (or at least our frontal lobes) are just habitat
>for memes that happen to keep their host vehicle ticking along. Not so
>easy for the classical or (aaargh) 'evolutionary' psychologist (I'm
>still bitter about them nicking the good name).
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Chris Taylor (chris@bioinf.man.ac.uk)
> http://bioinf.man.ac.uk/ »people»chris
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>===============================================================
>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 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 Mar 08 2001 - 01:32:36 GMT