Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA15371 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Thu, 11 Oct 2001 23:43:12 +0100 From: "salice" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:37:38 +0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: A Test Message-Id: <E15roUlemail@example.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> I said context is all important. Socio-cultural factors are
>important in the decisions people make, and the cultural trends they
>follow, or don't follow.
Yes but people react differently to cultural trends.
And as i already wrote culture doesn't come from nowhere. People
invent cultural trends at some point and then they spread when
some people want it.
>I'm saying is that I don't think that memes reside in brains.
I don't see how you can think that. Look, when i read a meme
somewhere, whatever sentence which you would also agree to be a meme.
Some sentence. Now i read it, i walk into another room and write it
down on a clean sheet of paper. So it has to be in whatever way in my
brain how else could i remember it and write it down again?
> One way
>to dispute this simplistic reductionism is by questioning the
>presence of memes in brains. That's all I've been trying to do by
>making the case for the artefactual meme (or G-meme after Derek
I'm not against your and Dereks concept of artefactual memes!
I totally agree to that, but i also believe that memes get also
stored in the brain. And more importantly: SELECTED! A book can't
copy itself, it needs a human to do it.
>What made those memes begin to spread again and more widely than
>before was not a product of individual choice, but of social
>circumstances that made notions of democracy attractive.
In the end it was individualS choice because i mean someone had to
read the book, some people had to take the neccessary action after
reading. Cultural change doesn't happen automatically. It needs
people who get active.
> And that not everyone spreads the same memes can be seen quite
> easily in reality too, so what's my problem?>
>In seeing a simple line from genes to brains to memes to culture.
I don't see this simple line. I agree to co-evolution theory.
But not dna here, memes there.
>Part of the basic point of memetics is that culture is, at least to
>some extent, off the leash from being determined by the genes, and
>may operate by its own processes, which may in turn operate
>according to an evolutionary model akin to the replicator theory of
Well if there's natural selection, there must be some selection.And
i think in most cases people do this. And here again, no other
examples could be given from you.
I can even think of a few others. Like internet 'agents', programs
who look for information and select which to present to the user.
That would be an example of a non-human selection. But still, this
program was programmed by a human and humans use it, if they want to.
> To refer back to the Greek example, it's also a bit like the
>differences between Athenian democracy and mass democracy.
It's sure different. But a mass is still a large amount of people.
You can abstract culture but in the end people live out cultural
trends, behaviours or decide to change culture.
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 Oct 12 2001 - 00:00:45 BST