RE: Abstractism

From: Grant Callaghan (
Date: Mon Jan 28 2002 - 21:12:44 GMT

  • Next message: Grant Callaghan: "Re: neccesity of mental memes"

    Received: by id VAA05020 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:16:57 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Grant Callaghan" <>
    Subject: RE: Abstractism
    Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:12:44 -0800
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jan 2002 21:12:44.0734 (UTC) FILETIME=[87796DE0:01C1A840]
    Precedence: bulk

    > > From: Grant Callaghan []
    > > I'm rapidly approaching the conclusion that no two people can
    > > agree on what
    > > the term "meme" refers to.
    >Which helps the 'meme' replicate. I understand there is research in press
    >(Wheeler) which identifies 9 different communities of scientists
    >using variations in their interpretatation of 'gene'. Signifiers get
    >replicated but do not have to show fidelity of 'signified' (as I have
    >asserted before)
    I've heard that the "gene" concept has several problems that obscure a clear
    picture of what a gene is. For one thing, genes are not expressed until
    they are used and how they are used can change what they are used for.
    There is also the problem that proteomics are another level of expression
    that obscure the picture. We think of genes as blue eyes and a particular
    shape to the nose, but the genetic code doesn't necessarily produce these
    features with single genes. It may be a combination of genes and proteins
    in various proportions that produce a particular feature. I don't think we
    know enough yet to pin DNA code down that way.


    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 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 21:25:20 GMT