From: Kenneth Van Oost (Kennethvanoost@belgacom.net)
Date: Wed 15 Jan 2003 - 20:47:19 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Brodie" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Keith wrote:
> <<While I certainly agree that our minds are shaped by ideas with both
> internal and external sources, I think calling ideas of a sort that are
> never passed on (entirely internal) does damaged to the very concept of
> It makes about as much sense as not calling genes that are never passed on
In the sense, that ' fingers just arise if cells where with all those
initial connected kill themselves ', how can it be that then ' death '
transmitted to the offspring !?
It would mean, in a sense, that the genes/ cells we end up with are not
but the ' dead neighbours ' of those genes/ cells are !
How would you call them !?
If we take the same approach for memes, we can say that the meme/ memeplex
we end up with, what thus gets selected and is tranferred into a behavior, a
performance, is the result of a ' slice- and devide- process ', where all
bits of perceived/ received info ( internal/ external) is cut up, all what
is left, is
what we need to survive ( 'we' here are our memes).
Thus the meme itself would not be important, but the non- content-
or what Grant describes as those info's we grab but never transmit, what in
" encircles " the thing we call meme.
What do you think !?
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 : Wed 15 Jan 2003 - 20:28:02 GMT