Re: Knowledge, Memes and Sensory Perception

From: Grant Callaghan (
Date: Tue Jan 15 2002 - 19:03:01 GMT

  • Next message: Wade Smith: "Re: Knowledge, Memes and Sensory Perception"

    Received: by id TAA22151 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:07:26 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Grant Callaghan" <>
    Subject: Re: Knowledge, Memes and Sensory Perception
    Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:03:01 -0800
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2002 19:03:01.0850 (UTC) FILETIME=[4124D3A0:01C19DF7]
    Precedence: bulk

    It doesn't seem possible to me that a meme could just appear and be
    communicated without having been thought of first. Or do you just refuse to
    call such thoughts memes? That's a valid viewpoint. A word can mean
    whatever you use it to mean. The only problem is that people probably won't
    understand what you mean if you use it in a way thats too far off the beaten
    path. If that doesn't bother you, it shoulden't bother anyone else. ;-)


    >Subject: Re: Knowledge, Memes and Sensory Perception
    >Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:39:07 -0500
    >On Tuesday, January 15, 2002, at 10:30 , <> wrote:
    >I will say, however, that I'm fairly convinced I will never take
    >the side of the meme as internal thought stance, since I really
    >have no good arguments for it.
    >But, I should take up that stance, as well, if only because that
    >will force me to debate for its side, and that is what I am
    >doing, taking sides to see which one has the better arguments.
    >- Wade

    Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:

    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 : Tue Jan 15 2002 - 19:14:26 GMT