Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA02849 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Thu, 26 Apr 2001 01:15:52 +0100 From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 19:18:09 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science Message-ID: <3AE722F1.26019.116D6C0@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010425204915.A679@ii01.org> References: <F25O8FNpyLAPDVXLuSb0000fbb7@hotmail.com>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 06:55:06PM -0400 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On 25 Apr 2001, at 20:49, Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 06:55:06PM -0400, Scott Chase wrote:
> > >On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:06:55PM +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> > > > <Religion is typically about following after entities which
> > > > possibly
> > > > don't
> > > > > even exist. Memetics could be in the same ballpark, but I
> > > > > wonder if
> > >this
> > > > > means memetics too is dangerous and insiduous.>
> > > > >
> > > > Indeed, indeed. This is I think what some ignore, others
> > > > embrace,
> > > > and some of us worry about constantly.
> > >
> > >I think that in some cases at least, an entity must be considered
> > >to exist, for some purposes, and not to do so, for others.
> > >
> > Is memetics a way of seeing which may/may not apply to the real
> > world?
> I don't see how it could be used that way.
> > >Don't those who feel strongly against that proposition need to find
> > >very clear definitions of "entity" and "existence"?
> > >
> > Can it be said that these entities called memes actually exist in
> > the real world beyond the confines of this list and the thinking
> > caps of those posting here?
> It (obviously) depends on how "meme" is defined. I have a definition
> by which it can be said that memes are objective entities. But that
> only works if you consider patterns can be such. (I follow Dennett in
> "believing in" real patterns.)
Yeah, the self is one; a dymanically recursive complex patterning
emerging from its complexly configured material substrate brain.
> > Is memetics a good idea (something useful with application and
> > correspondence to reality) or a good meme (something good at
> > propagating itself; a mind virus about infectious ideas) or perhaps
> > both (or neither)?
> I don't think "neither" is a meaningful option there (and I'm sure you
> don't either). It's important to acknowledge there's absolutely no
> conflict between "good idea" and "good meme" -- all can say is that
> for a meme to be one does not necessarily imply it's also the other. I
> think memetics is a "good idea" in some contexts, for some purposes,
> and not others. Whether it's a good meme remains to be seen.
> Robin Faichney
> Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org
> (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)
> 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: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
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 2b29 : Thu Apr 26 2001 - 01:21:17 BST