From: William Benzon (email@example.com)
Date: Sun 16 Feb 2003 - 22:35:27 GMT
on 2/16/03 5:18 PM, Grant Callaghan at firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> 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.
> Jon Gilbert
> I believe cognitive science does provide such evidence and the language with
> which to describe it. They just call them frames and blends rather than
> memes. But as long as people realize they are talking about the same basic
> thing, communication can take place.
I know that literature pretty well, and the meme metaphor has nothing
whatever to offer that literature. If you want to talk about frames or
blends or whatever, you should use those terms. The people who talk about
frames and blends and knowledge representation and cognitive networks etc.
don't talk about replication and parasites and hosts and all that. They
donšt need to and that pseudo-biological language adds nothing to our
-- William L. Benzon 708 Jersey Avenue, Apt. 2A Jersey City, NJ 07302 201 217-1010 "You won't get a wild heroic ride to heaven on pretty little sounds."--George Ives =============================================================== 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: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 16 Feb 2003 - 22:31:30 GMT