Re: Memes inside brain

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Mon Oct 08 2001 - 16:34:37 BST

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Fwd: The Science Behind the Song Stuck in Your Head"

    Received: by id PAA08647 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 15:56:46 +0100
    Message-ID: <002501c1500f$18fab6a0$f0a4bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <><> <003501c14f48$ddb5bfc0$d7a8bed4@default> <>
    Subject: Re: Memes inside brain
    Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 17:34:37 +0200
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    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: Bill Spight <>
    To: <>
    > > There has to be some memetic input somewhere, no !? Where and how !?
    > As I pointed out, memes include not only behaviors, but the conditions
    > for those behaviors. (I am not excluding other types of memes, but I
    > think that in the main they may be represented as situation-response
    > pairs. This is in line with the modern anthropological view of culture
    > as comprised of rules for behavior. See Clifford Geertz.) The behaviors
    > may be imitated, at least imperfectly, but the conditions must be picked
    > up by inference or instruction. So the main memetic input is observed
    > behavior, but instruction in some form needs to be there for the
    > transmission of many memes.

    Hi Bill,

    The lines mentioned above are of some specific interest to me, especially
    the representation of a meme as a situation- response pair.
    You know, or you don 't, it doesn 't matter, but I am deep in Lamarckism.
    My main interest points are lying there.
    Lamarck, in his Philosophie Zoologique talks a lot about " une réaction ",
    in many ways he seems to pre- suppose that behavior, change in behavior
    are caused by environmental changes where the organism reacts upon.

    For a long time and still, I am trying, not to convince, but to let see our
    co- members things in a different perspective.
    One of those is, that we, the human organism " reacts " upon changes
    caused in and by the environment and not simply adapt.
    In memetic perspective, adaptation is too slow to, IMO explain the
    evolution- rate by which memetic evolution is taking place.
    With the notion that we " react " and not simply adapt we can explain
    this mush better.

    If we should adapt such a view, that we react and that memes were nothing
    more than the representation of any situation- response than we can loosen
    up the gene- stuff.
    Than becomes memetics rightly a part of neurobiology, psychology, ...
    Genes are than nothing more than " capacity- ways " where along memes
    In my mind, reading Lamarck, there is no doubt, that he was not writing
    some book about biology, but one about psychology.
    " Re- inventing " Lamarckism in such ways should help us to understand
    what memes are all about, it helped me... but that is no reference I

    Anyway, can you give me more details about your " meme- as- re-
    presentation- of- a- situation- repsonse - view " !?

    Thanks in advance,



    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 : Mon Oct 08 2001 - 16:02:13 BST