Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA08187 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:48:12 GMT From: <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:42:06 +0100 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Knowledge, Memes and Sensory Perception Message-ID: <3C3DD26E.16658.312B7F@localhost> In-reply-to: <email@example.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> of the meme. One normally observe this kind of behaviour in
> people heavily influenced by religion and/or cult activities.
> It was not a dream, because in a dream there would have been a
> virtual organism communicating with the recipient. The client
> will normally say he/she intuitively 'knew' that it was the
> right thing to do.
You could compare this to "heureka!" moments. New memes
would come into play. I mean, it has to happen. If copying of
sensory received memes is the only way of memes-handling then
how did our language came into play. There once was the first
person who used a certain word and all the other's copied it. That
this person came up with the new word/idea is still a result of
former meme-input. There's no big mistery involved i think, it's just
a brain-process which is still not researched.
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 Jan 10 2002 - 17:03:31 GMT