Re: Thesis: Memes are DNA-Slaves

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Sun Oct 07 2001 - 15:59:21 BST

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: What/Who selects memes?"

    Received: by id PAA06493 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 15:19:40 +0100
    Message-ID: <003b01c14f40$be8b8380$6c03bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <> <>
    Subject: Re: Thesis: Memes are DNA-Slaves
    Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 16:59:21 +0200
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Precedence: bulk

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: salice <>
    To: <>
    > > Memes might favor certain kind of brain-building
    > > genes (memes guiding genes). Conversely, a particular
    > > brain might limit its memetic input to certain classes of memes
    > > (genes guiding memes).
    > The brain does not only limit memetic input it does also limit
    > memetic output. And what it outputs is a result of dna and other
    > memes which both together built the structure of a brain.


    A co- member Robert Grimes once wrote,

    ......that the susceptibility or resistance can be genetically determined but,
    also, that the subsequent brain environmental changes together with those
    individual genetic basics would determine what memes would work and the
    extent to which the subject might respond or not respond.
    (Bob Grimes, 18 January 2001 ( DNA culture...trivia ?))

    If you talk about limiting memetic input, two reasons can count,
    1_ your brain is too small to hold ever more memes, your brain needs than
    to expand, evolutionay, biological further. I don 't think this is the case.

    2_ it means that there is some point of memetic saturation, like I think
    Philip implies. If that is the case-1_ there are no memes left, no more new
    meanings, nomore new effects or aspects are possible, something I doubt.
                                                     2_ your brain can 't make
    up new connec-
    tions, biological we are stuck, but not memetical !
    Before the 11 of September noone saw how the WTC building or any
    other kind collapsed under the weight of terrorists attacks. Now we did.
    Memetical we are evolved and we do evolve further.
    Along which roads and are those the ones which we have to follow is open
    to debate.

    As to the case of memetic output, I agree on the fact that our brain limited
    this, but IMO only to reasons beyond its control.
    Social, political, biological, cultural reasons play here. Like Bob says,
    environmental changes restrict how and to what kind of memes you suppo-
    singly respond to or not.

    > The thing is that apart from memes and brains there's culture. If
    > your brain doesn't allow memes which are part of your culture to
    > exist then you're to a certain degree outside of culture, outside of
    > society, an outsider.

    << Agreed, but once again, somehow you must let than epi- memetic-
    rules play a role. Memetic lineages can change over night but not those
    genetical biases where they supposingly do rely on.
    (Memes in) your brain must have " reasons " not to allow certain memes
    to exist. But where is the reference point if we don 't have some epi-
    memetic ruling, some memetical - starter- set, some memetic sequence
    isomorphism ( Mark Mills coined that), some memetic " markers " must allow
    you to act, to let you be an outsider....



    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 : Sun Oct 07 2001 - 15:25:04 BST