Re: On Gatherer's behaviourist stance

Mario Vaneechoutte (
Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:45:02 +0200

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:45:02 +0200
From: Mario Vaneechoutte <>
Subject: Re: On Gatherer's behaviourist stance

Bill Benzon wrote:

> Mario Vaneechoutte wrote:
> > I can see what you mean, I think. But than, imagine the child is laying in bed and starts
> > thinking. Because it is dark, it does not observe objects or behaviours, but it uses mental
> > representations of these objects to do its thinking. Isn't it having mental memes?
> The child is having thoughs and images, but they aren't memes. They're just thoughts and
> images.

Well, it is a matter of definition. Some, like Dawkins, would call these memes and actually it is
one of the earliest definitions. The community of memeticists does not seem to agree about what
should be called a meme.Saying, like Paul, 'Never mind, and let me do applied memetics now' doesn't
work. It is like chemists doing chemistry without agreement on what an atom is.
Some, like Paul, even don't agree that there is something like thoughts inside our brain. They are
abstract models.

> > Aren't
> > there representations of real objects, or of statements it has heard (like: Marc Dutroux is
> > evil) inside the child's brain? Can't we call these Dawkinian B memes?
> One can do that. But, for better or worse, that just isn't how I think about things.
> Bill


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)