Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA06751 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Thu, 11 Apr 2002 01:00:48 +0100 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 19:54:41 -0400 Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #1011 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: "Wade T.Smith" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <F85Xsn2Yf0scL9NtDEJ00001de2@hotmail.com> Message-Id: <52E65585-4CDE-11D6-9E51-003065B9A95A@harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.481) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 06:59 , Scott Chase wrote:
> Otherwise what in particular is flawed in the notion that novelty stems
> from recombination of old material
It's just too simple.
> "Our psyche is not so fabulously rich that it can build from scratch
> each time. Neither does nature."
Whereas, that is not insipid, but rather evolutionarily valid and on the
mark. Not to say it isn't richer than most other things, but, it isn't
omnipotently rich, which is what I think he was getting at.
> Hoop snakes...yes?
Okay, here's where I fall- what are hoop snakes and what do they have to
do with anything?
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 : Thu Apr 11 2002 - 01:11:48 BST