From: derek gatherer (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri 21 Nov 2003 - 13:05:40 GMT
--- Bpmatt1@aol.com wrote:
> I don't understand your logic, why does internalism
> imply that memes cannot be quantified?
So how would you quantify them? For instance, it's
easy enough to count the number of murders, but rather
more difficult to count the number with murderous
> Viewing this paper through the
> lense of memetics, we can devolp a mathematical
> framework for analysing the spread, and probable
> growth of memes.
But we already have several competing methematical
frameworks for that (Cavalli-Sforza/Feldman/Laland,
Lumsden/Wilson, Boyd/Richerson and a few lesser ones)
Why develop another one unless those are lacking in
> I would say that Geertz's paper does not necessarily
> have to be interpreted as internalism. If we take
> his definition of ideology or science, as a symbolic
> system, we can see that meme's can easily exist
> outside of the mind. They exist in computers, a
> computer program fits this definition perfectly.
Szathmary and Maynard-Smith have argued that this is
digital evolution and therefore an evolutionary
transition beyond the analogue evolution of human culture.
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
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 : Fri 21 Nov 2003 - 13:16:09 GMT