Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA03756 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:42:36 GMT Message-Id: <200201181838.g0IIc6B16921@terri.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Knowledge, Memes and Sensory Perception Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 13:38:09 -0500 x-sender: email@example.com x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T. Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "Memetics Discussion List" <email@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
Hi Grant Callaghan -
>The reasons we come up with are
>usually arrived at after the fact and are more likely to be attempts at
>justification than valid observations.
And what about the memes involved, if any are involved at all?
After the fact as well?
Attempts at justifications?
If we call behaviors, and only behaviors, capable of memetic content, we
can then have only valid observations.
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 18 2002 - 19:58:53 GMT