Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA29880 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Mon, 7 May 2001 13:53:46 +0100 Message-Id: <email@example.com> X-Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 07:40:40 -0500 To: email@example.com From: Mark Mills <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: Information In-Reply-To: <3AF60846.B5DBEF87@wehi.edu.au> References: <3AED8233.15786.6E25AE@localhost> <20010501175304.A1297@ii01.org> <3AEEB6DE.18806.39FF8D@localhost> <20010502094920.A752@ii01.org> <3AF0B02C.605EB5F@wehi.edu.au> <20010504101910.A533@ii01.org> <email@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
At 12:28 PM 5/7/01 +1000, you wrote:
> > If all people have a similar set of conceptual dispositions, dispostions to
> > create stories for instance, then one can lead a 'listener' through an
> > exercise in perceptional chains with somewhat predictable results. The
> > message may not be one that can be 'spoken,' but a predictable mental state
> > may be replicated (communicated) to the listener.
>Sure - but this is not memetics; it is evolutionary psychology.
It is neural memetics.
>the generalised constraints of being human, memes are propagated in
>similar (enough) ways to all humans irrespective of biology, and so the
>operant protocol is what counts for meaning.
What do you think puts this 'operant protocol' into the human head? Or, is
that even necessary?
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 : Mon May 07 2001 - 13:57:20 BST