From: Jon Gilbert (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun 16 Feb 2003 - 21:11:10 GMT
>The problem is that, in the case of genes, a fuller explanation is readily
>available to anyone who wants to dig it out of the literature. That's not
>the case with these self-propelled memebots. As far as I can tell no one
>who talks about memes in this sense can actually give a fuller exposition
>that is grounded in psychology and neuropsychology. There is no
>intelligible neural account of memes. In the case of memes the shorthand
>"language of purpose" as you call it is the only language these folks have.
>They can't spell out the real mechanisms in full because they don't know
>what they are.
>As far as I'm concerned, that means that that language is bogus, based on
>little more than blind faith in Darwinian metaphor. It's not a tool for
>thoughtful analysis, it's a substitute for such analysis.
The lack of knowledge about DNA didn't stop Darwin. The fact is, we
KNOW there are neurological and psychological underpinnings of memes.
There has to be. True, science has not advanced to the point of
having a comprehensive description of what they are, but when it
does, we'll be ready.
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 : Sun 16 Feb 2003 - 21:08:12 GMT