Re: The evolution of "evolution"

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Tue 01 Nov 2005 - 20:11:06 GMT

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: The evolution of "evolution""

    ----- Original Message ----- From: Dace <>

    > You noted in a different post that scientists have no difficulty accepting
    > invisible phenomenon. This is true of physicists but not biologists.
    > physicists readily accept the evidence for action at a distance,
    > remain wedded to contact mechanics. This just goes to show that while a
    > meme dies off in one environment, it may continue flourishing in another.

    Ok, I go along with this argument Ted, but how would you ' recognise ' a meme lost in our noosphere and ' re-appearing ' back in another environ- ment !? Is the meme you forgot the same that you blogged upon your PC !? The content may be, but the meme itself is not ! What flourish is a ' continuation ' of the meme, like the Space- Shuttle is the continuation of the arrow. The fundamental ideas behind both may be the same, but the memes to get result are not.

    For what we today memetically ended up with, a large amount of possibilities/ expressions/ indifferenties/ orders/ etc were and are lost, if I follow your argument to the extreme, where do flourish the latters !? Explain please...



    =============================================================== 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 : Tue 01 Nov 2005 - 20:27:27 GMT