Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA10119 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:42:24 GMT Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:14:47 +0000 To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Knowledge, Memes and Sensory Perception Message-ID: <20020111101447.A553@ii01.org> References: <3C3DB596.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i From: Robin Faichney <email@example.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 04:38:33PM +1100, Jeremy Bradley wrote:
> 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.
Hi Jeremy, you might be interested in my argument that memes should be
considered *encoded* in brains, behaviour and artefacts. This is on
the web here: http://www.ii01.org/culture.html
> Also I worry that memetics is being used to develop a theory of cultural
That would be worrying, but I see no evidence for it.
-- "The distinction between mind and matter is in the mind, not in matter." Robin Faichney -- inside information -- http://www.ii01.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 11 2002 - 10:49:08 GMT