From: Reed Konsler (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu 15 May 2003 - 12:52:38 GMT
Usually, scientists adopt new models when a present one doesn't explain
observations. Can you give me an example of something within the realm of
memetics that performance explains but mind memes don't. You've talked at
length about how performance is more consistent with facts you claim to know
or logic as you understand it.
Let's be more pragmatic. I find memes in the mind to be a more intuitive
way of thinking about memes. It's easier to explain to people. It's not
TRUE. But then, no model is true. I don't have any problem holding
mutually conflicting scientific models. It happens all the time. I don't
like it, but it's a consequence of limited knowledge and brain power. I'm
not going to throw away a useful mind-tool just because it doesn't match the
rest of my set.
Dawkins wrote a book about Selfish Genes and when I read it my mind said
"Eureka!" because it made confusing things make sense...it was simple, elegant and powerful. That is how a scientific theory gets adopted.
Give me that. Then then I'll by your idea. Until then, I'll stick with
what is intuitive.
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 : Thu 15 May 2003 - 13:01:27 GMT