Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA26213 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sat, 16 Feb 2002 00:41:43 GMT Subject: Re: Wilson on memes Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:36:27 -0500 x-sender: firstname.lastname@example.org x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" <email@example.com> To: "Memetics Discussion List" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <20020216003610.E95321FD45@camail.harvard.edu> Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
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