From: Van oost Kenneth (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon 30 Jun 2003 - 18:50:39 GMT
----- Original Message -----
> My original point stands, however, that it the decision to act is a
> cognitive and internal process, not an environmental and external one
> (although the decision to act is often, though not always, prompted by
> and in response to the reception of external stimuli).
< Yes it does and I 'm glad you acknowledge the fact that the envi-
ronment/ external stimuli is of great importance.
But, if memes ARE acions, than writing one down would mean that
' the writing down of the meme ' IS the meme_ regardless of the context/ meaning of the stuff ! It is than what ( the writing) I see ( as the observer) that is the meme
( for me). And yes, that is meaningless_ without the ' knowing ' of what the guy is doing I wouldn 't comprehend that it is actual writing stuff down ! So, I need cognitive and internal processes on which I can rely to understand.
Can 't thus Wade's scheme not be a 2 way mechanism- in which
2 lines of communication are working simultaneously !?
One line working onto the level of species- selection ( the writing
down of any meme) itself is the meme. Thus the meme IS the
action_ and that the other line is working on a more individualisticly
bases ( meaning/ context related).
If the evolution of writing ( or even language) is an aspect of with
species- bounded selection, than the evolution itself of the pheno-
mena needs the faster lane of the individualisticly selection to progress.
It is thus what can evolve very fast that will survive_ and so in
order to survive, the action ( writing stuff down) must have a 1000
and more ways to be performed.
Writing stuff down with a pencil would be ok for eons of time if
there was enough wood and carbon avaible to sustain the commands.
The writing itself would diseappear if noone could supply anymore_
and if there wasn 't another tool to pen down the words.
So, no Wade's scheme don 't falls down as long we go for a 2 way
system. That is not to say that the above is right, it is just a suggestion
to rewind your opposition. Moreover, as it is memetics we 're talking
about and not genetics, anew ideas and angles of incidence are needed
to understand what is going on. For the memeisthemotion- model we
need far more new ideas and angles to make it work.
Critizing one model with the characteristics of another is actual no
good at all. I understand that is for now the only way we got and
maybe the only way there will ever be.........
But anyway, what do you think !?
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 : Mon 30 Jun 2003 - 18:57:10 GMT