Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA12064 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:49:29 GMT Message-ID: <3AACE136.AA315882@bioinf.man.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:46:14 +0000 From: Chris Taylor <Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk> Organization: University of Manchester X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Are there any memes out there? References: <20010312142115.AAA10338@camailp.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.215]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>> 1) When a certain form of meme (action, knowledge etc.) is required, a
>> kind of resonance propagates through the mind, embodying the selective
>> requirements, and whatever sings the loudest (most strongly 'hit' all
>> the 'resonant frequencies') comes to the 'fore' in the mind.
> 'Meme' is unrequired in this process.
If you don't have internal entities (~memes by my definition) then the
'resonance' (or whatever) will be too diffuse (I reckon). I think you
need entities to ensure a quick defined (in the sense of finite)
response. Although 'new' memes could be generated by the usual
recombination (or import), I think the first stop is for pre-existing
'chunks' like the objects in OO-programming - they have a bit of info, a
bit of functionality.
So I don't know if you were specifically objecting to the terminology
(in which case I say fair enough, I should get my own word), but if your
objection was to the principle, I can't agree.
I prefer the second mechanism though anyway if I'm honest - more
biological, less mystical...
>> 2) This mechanism requires that our little memes are independent and
>> self assorting:
> 'Self-asserting'...?
Yeah, you could say that (if you're using the old shorthand of volition
in evolution) but I meant self assorting in the sense that species in an
ecosystem find their 'right' places through background interactions
(would be a 'background' subconscious thing in us).
> Design is always a dangerous word to even think about with evolution.
Never a truer phrase typed. I don't think I implied that though, all I
require is selective criteria and things to try to fit to them.
Cheers, Chris.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 12 2001 - 14:51:57 GMT