Re: Wilson on memes

From: Wade T.Smith (
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 - 00:36:27 GMT

  • Next message: Keith Henson: "Re: speaking of science fiction"

    Received: by id AAA26213 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 00:41:43 GMT
    Subject: Re: Wilson on memes
    Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:36:27 -0500
    x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas
    From: "Wade T.Smith" <>
    To: "Memetics Discussion List" <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Message-Id: <>
    Precedence: bulk

    Hi Keith Henson -

    >Personally I think that attempts to give exact definitions are a waste of
    >time. If you get to the stage of modeling or even thought experiments, it
    >is clear from the model or the math what you are doing.

    That seems perfectly self-consistent.

    And there are several models. I'm not a mathematician, but, is there one
    that shows a meme is a requirement, or that models human behavior
    successfully because of its inclusion? Or are there merely experimental
    models that use a meme (of whatever definition) as a constant somehow?

    Or is there one that makes a meme an obvious derivation?

    Again, IMHO, there is not, unless the meme is behavioral.

    - Wade

    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 : Sat Feb 16 2002 - 01:33:27 GMT