From: Van oost Kenneth (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat 18 Jan 2003 - 11:42:22 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Henson" <email@example.com>
> > > No. Because you happen to be a dead end for a meme does not keep it
> > > being a meme. After all, it was passed to you. My argument is that
> > > idea that does not get passed at all falls short of being a meme. It
> > > sure does not become part of the culture pool. Of course, *all* ideas
> > > potential memes at least until the single mind containing the meme
> > > dies. (And just because an idea is a meme does not keep it from still
> > > being an idea.)
Kenneth, That we, humans, in a sense are just ' cut out ' of some genetic cardboard !?
> >That thus, the ' neighbours ' of the cells we end up with are im-
portant and not the cells which has ' survived' . Keith,
> Sorry, but to me the empty spaces between the fingers are less important
> than the fingers.
Not in the way that those empty spaces were once occupied with cells
now long gone ! What kind of information does these cells had !?
In memetic terms, try to see the bunch of info that is eliminated to
come to ' I' am good in math ' ! Or to come to the self- plex !
All kinds of memes had to be redrawn from the personal memepool
to come to what you are ! Are you not interested in those and in the
why those are eliminated by your memetic system !?
This would uphold the notion ' memes make you ' for sure !
> >In what way do those ' cells ' get passed and will those apply to be
> >a ' meme ' if you say you ' re argument is that an idea that doesn 't get
> >passed at all falls short of being a meme.
I recon that thus ' death ' ideas are " passed on "....and thus in a sense,
> >' death ' memes too... !? No !?
> >In a way, those memes are on a death end, literally, but they stay '
> >If we know what the ' neighbouring ' aspects of any idea/ thought/
> >engram/...are, ( thus the " death", filtered out effects) it will tell
us, what is the ' meme ' !?
> I wish you would illustrate your postings with specific examples because
> even with effort I don't get a clear idea of what you are talking
As a possible example for what you are talking about, consider two stick
> and ball games, baseball and kricket. One could imagine a continuous
> of games between these two, but as far as I know, there are no such
> examples. I suppose this fact could be used as an argument that both
> baseball and kricket are memes, perhaps since they are seldom played in
> same area, competing memes.
Hm, no ! You have to consider the fact that all kinds of memes were
eliminated to come to the game of baseball or kricket.
The game of baseball is not important, the meme of the game of baseball
is not important. What is, is what surrounded the ' game ' in the first
Out of what a kind of ' memetic- game- cardboard ' has baseball been cut.
All those memes are gone. What was important, what was irrelevant to
our ( or others) memetic or other filters. If you know that, than we would
understand why ' the game of baseball ' is THE meme, and not the ' blame
of gasball ' as an example...
In a way I am saying, we are looking at the ' wrong ' markers.
We are looking at the genes/ cells and at the memes, but what ' could '
be the things to look for, are those that ' are ' gone, those cells that
commit suicide to come to the fingers, the cells that in the first place
occupied the space between the fingers...
It would in a sense indicate why the form of the fingers is the one
we end up with.
Figers are not ' made ' by cells and genes as we think, but are ' made '
( 'cut out' ) by cells and genes that commit suicide. That 's a big difference !
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 : Sat 18 Jan 2003 - 11:22:37 GMT