Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA19971 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Thu, 29 Nov 2001 01:11:14 GMT Subject: Re: circular logic Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:06:14 -0500 x-sender: firstname.lastname@example.org x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" <email@example.com> To: "Memetics Discussion List" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-ID: <20011129010613.AAA3030@email@example.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
Hi Joe Dees -
>This process [imitation of actions- let me know if I mis-stated that] has
>essential things to do with both evolution generally (as
>a particular instantiation of some evolutionary principles)
I really do fail to see how evolution requires imitation to produce, say,
the walking stick insect. (Or anything else, but I wanted an example that
some people would actually say imitates something else.)
That mimicry was selected for, not imitated.
>the human mind, which is the internal environment of memes, is, unlike our
>ecosphere within which genes must compete, an intentional one.
The human mind is just another part of this ecosphere- an artefact of the
developed and evolved brain. That it has intention is probable but
problematic, but it must also compete.
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 : Thu Nov 29 2001 - 01:18:47 GMT