Re: The evolution of

From: Mark Mills (
Date: Mon 10 Oct 2005 - 18:07:47 GMT

  • Next message: Dace: "Re: The evolution of "evolution""


    I've been following this conversation with interest. I think your comments about 'memory' problematic, but Derek's confidence that a set of growth factors 'explain' ontogenesis is problematic, too.

    Derek>>> In the face of this avalanche of evidence, how can you, or
    >anyone, still believe otherwise?
    Kieth>> That's actually an excellent question to ask in a memetics group.
    >Rather than argue about the subject (which is in my opinion solidly
    >as Derek states) the memetics meta question is why people believe in
    >things that are clearly just not so?

    Though I'm not sure who clearly misses that which is 'clearly just not so', I entirely agree with Keith that the stubborn aspects of belief are of great interest. I'd much rather gain an understanding of the refractory affective phase than debate the angel to pinhead ratio.


    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon 10 Oct 2005 - 18:30:31 GMT