Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA15714 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Tue, 5 Feb 2002 04:12:15 GMT Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 23:06:44 -0500 Subject: Re: Words and memes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: "Wade T.Smith" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <200202050243.g152hWQ14532@mail13.bigmailbox.com> Message-Id: <C45F6444-19ED-11D6-84EB-003065B9A95A@harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Monday, February 4, 2002, at 09:43 , Joe Dees wrote:
> Nature does not intentionally mutate genes with an 'eye' toward the
Certainly true. I more meant, it's not 'blind' as regards motion and
direction. It's not intentional, but it has the unblindedness of
> people do frequently intentionally mutate memes in order to improve
> their replicatory coefficient.
I wonder if such mutation is not _completely_ due to the intention of
improving their replicatory coefficient- understand my meme totally, and
you are me.
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 Feb 05 2002 - 05:17:11 GMT