Date: Wed 21 May 2003 - 17:48:52 GMT
> On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 01:13 AM, Scott wrote:
> > Careful there when invoking the pink unicorn hypothesis
> I knew you'd notice.
> I think I was careful. I can at least point to the pink unicorn now in
> my garden, since performances are quite tangible, but, yes, I don't
> think any memeinthemind advocate can point to theirs, although, at
> least they have a garden to imagine it in. As you say "[they] are
> hijacking memory research and claiming it for memetics by merely
> embedding the term 'meme' into a discussion of memory." Yes, they can
> point to memory research, but, no further. Not _yet_, as they say,
> and, let's give them that.
> > One can accept that memory has a neural basis, yet be quite
> > skeptical that memes have any basis.
> Right on.
Not if memes are the replicable subclass of memory. Private perceptions cannot be replicated, but the meanings that are assigned to such perceptions in a common code (a language) can be and are.
> - Wade
> 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 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 21 May 2003 - 17:53:56 GMT