Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA12251 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 10 Aug 2001 04:00:51 +0100 From: <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 22:04:52 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Logic Message-ID: <3B730904.22596.97551D@localhost> In-reply-to: <002501c120e6$765da4e0$b706bed4@default> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On 9 Aug 2001, at 17:17, Kenneth Van Oost wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Dace <email@example.com>
> > > > << You see, you too stick to the view that genes control
> > > > everything, epimemetic landscapes must be a function of the
> > > > genes. Why !? Why can 't it be that epimemetic landscapes
> > > > control in what way, to
> > which
> > > > extend genes unfold themselves !?
> > >
> > > I'm arguing that memes have no relation whatsoever to genes.
> > > Memes are associated with thought. When enough people subscribe
> > > to a particular belief, such as the notion that evolution is a
> > > product of changing environmental conditions and random genetic
> > > mutation, then this belief becomes part of our collective memory.
> > Hi Dace,
> > Yes, I too think that evolution must be viewed as a twofold process,
> > where memes drives the genes these days. Memes are indeed, of course
> > associated with thought and IMO we have to stop applying ' genetic-
> > like ' explanations to describe the memes themselves and the
> > processes where they are involved in.
> > A better way to describe our ' collective memory ' would be to say
> > that all our individualistic " beliefs " about a certain thing are
> > so
> > together that it would be difficult to seperate them.
> > The One is equal to the Many and we see it as the Same.
> > All the individualistic alternatives look alike and resembles.
> > All the differencies all do resemble alike but may not be far out to
> > eachother so that we can't seperate them in ' individalistic belief
> > and the resemblance must be up that close so that we can see a col-
> > lective image emerging. In a way the collective memory is everywhere
> > and nowhere and each individual holds a piece.
Ted has mentioned both configurations (such as fish scale colors)
and actions (such as the opening of milk bottles by birds) as
possible examples of morphogenetic resonance. I consider the
first to be genetically determined and the second to be learned
behavior, but in no way can I conceive of such disparate examples
as issuing from a common cause.
> > Regards,
> > Kenneth
> > ( I am, because we are) for the quick return
> 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 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 04:05:06 BST