Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA28472 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:33:42 +0100 Subject: Re: Faking It: The Internet Revolution Has Nothing to Do With the Nasdaq Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:30:06 -0400 x-sender: email@example.com x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "memetics list" <email@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-ID: <20010718123025.AAA781@firstname.lastname@example.org> Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On 07/18/01 07:07, Chris Taylor said this-
>preventing anything from evolving 'de novo'
Of course, if it's written, someone wrote it- that someone with a head
full of memes and nowhere else to put 'em.
'De novo', or being the product of creativity, is itself somewhat a
debated process, but I would come down quite happily on the side of "yes,
Virginia, there are new things in the world, and evolution makes them in
nature and entities (people) make them in culture."
None of this to say that most of it all is just copies of what went
before - that is, of course, a given.
Besides, what would evolution _be_ if it weren't 'de novo'?
And, yeah, with some weariness, I do realize, with the glint of the
definitionalist, that evolution would be just what it is, and, how can a
product of a process be 'new'?
Twists. From start to finish.
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 : Wed Jul 18 2001 - 13:38:20 BST