Re: Re:

From: Steve Drew (
Date: Mon Feb 18 2002 - 22:34:29 GMT

  • Next message: Richard Brodie: "RE: Words and memes: criteria for acceptance of new belief or meme"

    Received: by id WAA07922 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 22:42:08 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
    Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 22:34:29 +0000
    Subject: Re: Re:
    From: Steve Drew <>
    To: <>
    Message-ID: <>
    Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Feb 2002 22:36:29.0511 (UTC) FILETIME=[B5264D70:01C1B8CC]
    Precedence: bulk

    >Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:15:35 -0500
    From: "Wade T.Smith" <>
    Subject: Re: Re:

    On Saturday, February 16, 2002, at 05:50 , Steve Drew wrote:

    > As you may be aware i am not too keen on behaviour only, as i feel it
    > reduces us to automata. Nothing wrong with a dose of skepticism though.

    Actually, I really see no mechanism that reduces us to automata from the
    memes-are-behavior-only stance.

    After all, all I am saying is that _memes_ are behavior, not that all of
    our behaviors are automatic or reducible.

    And memes are behaviors that have a large and complex process (the
    meme-factory) churning them out, and that factory is complex and
    indeterminate- it is the brain/mind.

    And it is a stance, a perspective, not a declaration.

    - - Wade

    Hi Wade,

    Can't think why you thought that i thought you were adopting a declaration
    instead of a position, as that would not be very skeptical. :-)

    Memes as behaviour can be reduced to automatic responses as Susan Blackmore
    tried to do. This is in part why i don't like this point of view and tend to
    side with the ideas-objects-behaviours point.

    eg. going back to our rock bashing days, one of our ancestors must have come
    up with the idea of using a rock as a tool. There must have been a point
    where there was some equivalent of *what if?*. Ok people copy this behaviour
    and the meme bandwagon gets rolling. With language you get a second channel
    of communication, as Blackmore puts it *copy the instruction*. hence you
    have the idea of a behaviour, not an observation of a behaviour. So i equate
    the idea of a behaviour as valid as that of the behaviour itself, the the
    fidelity may not be as good.



    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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 18 2002 - 23:21:59 GMT