Re: I know one when I see one

From: Wade T.Smith (
Date: Fri 01 Nov 2002 - 23:56:52 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: I know one when I see one"

    On Friday, November 1, 2002, at 06:26 , wrote:

    > But we are able to rationally attribute such effects to other causes;
    > such
    > is not the case with multiple performances of similar meaningful
    > actions.

    Multiple performances of similar meaningful actions can have several other rational causes, one being rationality itself- there is nothing in any appreciation of such performances that demands a memeinthemind controlling them. Besides, where is this 'meaning' coming from? Surely there are several models that separate meaning from action entirely, rational models that have great success of prediction, like granular dynamics for traffic flow, in spite of the fact that traffic is composed of humans performing individual actions, perhaps with some meaning attached to them.

    I appreciate your adherence to the memeinthemind model, but to call it the only possible and consequential explanation of similar behaviors is sheer and blatant absurdity.

    - Wade

    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat 02 Nov 2002 - 00:00:47 GMT