From: Scott Chase (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri 13 Feb 2004 - 22:15:14 GMT
>From: "Richard Brodie" <email@example.com>
>Subject: RE: Durkheim on historical origin versus current utility
>Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:20:44 -0800
>John Wilkins wrote:
> > As it happens, I think memetics has some underlying
> > problems, but they do not arise out of the analogy of
> > cultural evolution to biological evolution.
> > They arise out of a philosophical tendency to objectify
> > abstractions such as "gene". I have already argued in my
> > major JoM article that what counts in evolution of culture is
> > any entity at any level, above and beyond the individual if
> > necessary, that is subjectible to selection.
> > Memes can be social institutions in my opinion. Or they can
> > be fragments of ideas in single heads.
>Out of respect for the coiners of the word I didn't use "meme" to refer to
>all of these cultural replicators, just the simple ones (fragments of ideas
>in people's heads). I used other terms to refer to more complex
>Unfortunately there continues to be much confusion about the definition of
>"meme." What a territorial battle!
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me again point out the fragments of ideas in a person's head starts converging into engram/mnemon territory.
>Glad to have you back.
Keep up with high-tech trends here at "Hook'd on Technology."
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 13 Feb 2004 - 22:26:52 GMT