From: Douglas Brooker (email@example.com)
Date: Wed 14 May 2003 - 19:41:43 GMT
"Wade T. Smith" wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 02:02 PM, Scott wrote:
> > Fact of memes? A rather bold statement that is. I'd rather see it as
> > "presupposition (or assumption) of memes".
> > Is there sufficient reason to assume that ideas are isomorphic between
> > individuals? If so, provide some here:
> > I don't see Wade as raising a straw man, but raising healthy objection.
> Well, firstly, thanks. I don't see it as a straw man either. I see
> people who object to it as a straw man as deliberately avoiding the
> issue, entirely, almost to ad hominem levels. There is no straw there
> in this objection, as there is no straw there in your claiming memes
> are assumptions.
> But- in the case of the performance model, memes are not only
> evidential and non-abstract, but absolute and defined with certain
> rigidity. They are not assumptions about the way a mind, or minds,
> work, but a working theory about the process of cultural evolution, at
> the level of quantum units.
the reference to quantum suggests the idea that a meme may be one thing under
certain conditions and another thing under different conditions.
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 : Wed 14 May 2003 - 19:45:28 GMT