Re: Information

From: Mark Mills (
Date: Mon May 07 2001 - 13:40:40 BST

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: Information"

    Received: by id NAA29880 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 7 May 2001 13:53:46 +0100
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
    Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 07:40:40 -0500
    From: Mark Mills <>
    Subject: Re: Information
    In-Reply-To: <>
    References: <3AED8233.15786.6E25AE@localhost> <> <3AEEB6DE.18806.39FF8D@localhost> <> <> <> <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
    Precedence: bulk


    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