Re:Memes in brain

From: Derek Gatherer (
Date: Tue Oct 09 2001 - 15:48:45 BST

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: Memes in brain"

    Received: by id PAA10824 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 15:53:18 +0100
    Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 09:48:45 -0500 (EST)
    From: "Derek Gatherer" <>
    Message-Id: <>
    Subject: Re:Memes in brain
    Content-Type: text
    Precedence: bulk

    I think that the main problem for external memes lies in the question of meaning

    Yes, it is a problem. Especially when nobody can agree on the meaning.
    What, for instance, is the meaning of "Waiting for Godot"? Something
    was going on in Sam Beckett's head when he wrote it, but to what extent
    is that something reproduced when we watch a production of the play? Did
    he even intend that we should 'understand' some point he was trying to make -
    or is it Zen-like, some sort of provocation to do our own thinking, not
    necessarily congruent in any way with Beckett's own thoughts?

    So, although I admit that I am totally at a loss to analyse meaning scientifically
    , I'd submit that the internal approach does no better.

    Somebody was making a point (it might have been you, Bill, possibly??) about
    even if memes can be demonstrated not to be in brains, they might be in minds.
    I just can't handle minds, I admit - everything I have ever been taught is
    about analysing observables, and unfortunately minds aren't in that category.

    I'm not sure if the internalist memeticists really do claim to be observing
    minds. But I'd be very suspicious of any proposed science of minds - the
    Freudians set out in that direction and vanished off the scientific radar screen.

    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 : Tue Oct 09 2001 - 15:58:45 BST