Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA13089 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 10 Aug 2001 07:52:50 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [184.108.40.206] From: "Scott Chase" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Logic Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:50:07 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F823MI9VsZDgw0V8Lr200003a59@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Aug 2001 06:50:07.0299 (UTC) FILETIME=[B1005930:01C12168] Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
>From: "Dace" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: Logic
>Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 22:54:18 -0700
> > > 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.
>When he first coined the term, Dawkins located "memes" in the brain. If
>brain is reducible to genes, then memes are functions of genes. But if the
>brain is informed by past, similar brains, then memes are patterns of
>neurotransmission that follow habitually from previous, similar patterns.
Well, if there is a social heredity or means of cultural transmission,
whether Dawkinsian memes or the noogenetic/noetic patterns of Julian Huxley
(somewhat following in the footsteps of Teilhard), the brain could be
informed by past "similar" brains without the spooky MR principle. This
means of social heredity need not be tightly leashed by genes either.
Tradition need not resonate, whatever that means.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
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 - 07:57:09 BST