From: Philip Jonkers (email@example.com)
Date: Fri 18 Oct 2002 - 07:55:26 GMT
> > I think Richard questioned the importance/relevance of distinctions
> > ideas, behaviours and artifacts. At the end of the day it may not
> > much conceptually (although I think it might), but it certainly matters
> > operationally, in terms of what we study if we want to try and study
> > "in the wild" (i.e. empirically). If memes are in minds that's no good
> > me, as I'm not a neuroscientist or psychologist; if they're in
> > then its perhaps social psychologists' and anthropologists' territory,
> > no good to me. If they're in artifacts, then people like me can play
> > In other words, I'll admit I have a professional vested interest in
> > to keep an artifactual dimension to memes.
> If memes as artifacts makes you and Derek happy among others;
> memes as behavior makes guys like Wade happy, and memes as ideas (among
> other things) makes me and a whole bunch of other people happy, then why
> fuse all those suggestions into one overarching abstract definition?
> Just an idea... er, meme I mean ;-).
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 2.1.5 : Fri 18 Oct 2002 - 08:03:54 GMT