Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA04886 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:20:50 +0100 Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 13:17:06 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) From: "Wade T.Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com In-Reply-To: <3B2F859A.C05BFDF1@bioinf.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: sexual selection and memes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <20010619171706.AAA19062@camailp.harvard.edu@net-31729> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On Tuesday, June 19, 2001, at 01:02 , Chris Taylor wrote:
> I still think that a slightly more
> fine-grained analysis has value.
But I agree, you see- finely graining the analysis is where we might
need the statistical referent of a meme, but, maybe not.
So far, I'm still working on getting it into my head that memes are
necessary and sufficient. And so far, I ain't convinced- and your
example is one of the reasons I waver towards remaining unconvinced.
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 : Tue Jun 19 2001 - 18:24:41 BST