From: Keith Henson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue 11 Mar 2003 - 04:03:14 GMT
At 12:05 PM 10/03/03 -0500, you wrote:
>on 3/10/03 11:09 AM, Samuel Rose at email@example.com wrote:
> > I have only recently subscribed to this list, and I have recently got
> > ahold of a copy of Robert Aunger's "The Electric Meme".
> > I have not found many references here to his theory about what "memes"
> > are, and was wondering if anyone had any input on this book/theory?
>I've written a rather scathing review of the book:
>Basically, his neuroscience is incompetent and his theory internally
After going out and reading your review (where you said the first 6
chapters were a competent statement of the current state of memetics) I
tend to agree. If you really don't understand what is going on with
something, characterizing it as a black box (where you don't try to look
inside) is the best way to start. It lets you get on with larger scale
analysis without worrying over details you can't see anyway. Dawkins
studies with the hard wired wasps comes to mind. Dawkins had no idea of
what was going on inside the wasp even though the insect's neural system
was orders of magnitude less complicated than a human.
Though William Calvin doesn't try to connect mental activity to memes, he
does some of the most interesting work in the area of how thought is
supported by the physical structure of the brain. Calvin makes a case for
full scale Darwinian evolution running on a scale of milliseconds to
seconds on "sequencing" in preparation to hurling a projectile or speaking
a sentence. Aunger's thesis in the second half of his book sounds a
bit like he might have heard about Calvin's work through a rumor chain.
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 : Tue 11 Mar 2003 - 04:01:20 GMT