Re: Robert Aunger essay

From: Robin Faichney (
Date: Sun 16 Apr 2006 - 18:03:23 GMT

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: Corner cases was Robert Aunger essay"

    Sunday, April 16, 2006, 6:14:16 PM, Scott wrote:

    >>From: Robin Faichney <>
    >>It's interesting the way this discussion has developed. The issue of the
    >>definition of the meme evolved very quickly into a discussion of "substrate
    >>neutrality". Examples where the same information is carried on different
    >>media were put forward by Kate, Keith and myself merely to emphasize the
    >>nature of information, and thus the fact that memes, as items of
    >>information, can be and are encoded not just in brains OR behavioural
    >>patterns, but in brains AND behavioural patterns AND all kinds of
    >>artifacts. That issue -- definition -- seems to me much more important --
    >>especially given the fact that nobody has suggested that the substrate is
    >>entirely neutral. But few of us seem to be very interested in it.
    > Well Mogens mentioned Medium Theory and McLuhan. Jesse discussed aspects of
    > the source that might be important to a given receiver. I'd say there's a
    > few of us interested in these topics relted to media.

    Did anyone else think that last "it" referred to such topics?

    Best regards,
    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 : Sun 16 Apr 2006 - 18:42:34 GMT