Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id FAA09617 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 11 Jan 2002 05:48:06 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: cheetah.nor.com.au: Host 021.analog.ppp.lismore.dataheart.net [184.108.40.206] claimed to be green-machine Message-Id: <email@example.com> X-Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:38:33 +1100 To: email@example.com From: Jeremy Bradley <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: Knowledge, Memes and Sensory Perception In-Reply-To: <JJEIIFOCALCJKOFDFAHBCEKGEBAA.email@example.com> References: <3C3DB596.firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
At 08:40 AM 10/01/02 -0800, you wrote:
>What if I never have children. Are the stands of DNA in my cells not genes?
>You have simply identified a phenomenon that is not very interesting in
>explaining cultural evolution.
I agree Richard
We have to separate the meme from its manifestation. We don't hear
geneticists confusing genes and cells. In my view the thought becomes
contagious because it is memeticly recognised as valid. The thought, or the
article, is not a meme.
Also I worry that memetics is being used to develop a theory of cultural
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 Jan 11 2002 - 06:16:17 GMT