Message-Id: <199910051326.JAA24180@smtp7.atl.mindspring.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:34:57 -0400
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: bbenzon@mindspring.com (Bill Benzon)
Subject: Re: implied or inferred memes
At 1:34 AM 10/5/99 +0100, Mark M. Mills wrote:
>
>>Well, if folks like Walter Freeman are correct, then the correlation you're
>>looking for may not be possible, even in principle. It may not be a matter
>>of instrumentation at all. It may just be that the relationship between
>>the neural schemas and patterns of synaptic excitability is indirect and
>>fairly abstract.
>
>Fairly abstract? Is that like fairly pregnant?
yes:)
>
>>Well, yeah, certainly the mind/brain is a product of development. But it's
>>not at all clear to me that this development involves mental memes. It
>>involves the development of neural structures capable of imitating the
>>G-memes required by the local culture.
>
>I'm puzzled by the object of your final sentence, 'neural structures
>capable of imitating the G-meme.' I think we agree that a G-meme is
>something in the environment, an object quite often. How will a neural
>structure 'imitate' an object?
My mistake. Try something like "neural structures capable of realizing the
G-memes"
William L. Benzon 201.217.1010
708 Jersey Ave. Apt. 2A bbenzon@mindspring.com
Jersey City, NJ 07302 USA http://www.newsavanna.com/wlb/
===============================================================
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