Re: memes defined operationally (from article)

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Wed 15 Jan 2003 - 20:47:19 GMT

  • Next message: Alan Patrick: "Re: U.S. TV Shows Losing Potency Around World"

    ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Brodie" <>
    > 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
    > memes.>>
    > It makes about as much sense as not calling genes that are never passed on
    > genes.

    Richard, Keith,

    In the sense, that ' fingers just arise if cells where with all those fingers were initial connected kill themselves ', how can it be that then ' death ' cells were transmitted to the offspring !?

    It would mean, in a sense, that the genes/ cells we end up with are not important, 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 possible performance, is the result of a ' slice- and devide- process ', where all kinds of 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- transmissions, or what Grant describes as those info's we grab but never transmit, what in a way,
    " 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) see:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 15 Jan 2003 - 20:28:02 GMT