Re: Doing the neural walk

Tim Rhodes (
Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:18:12 -0700

From: "Tim Rhodes" <>
To: <>
Subject: Re: Doing the neural walk
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:18:12 -0700

Mark Mills writes:

>Thus, there are 4 ways of defining the relationship between memes and
>1. Both genes and memes are substance (substance model)
>2. Both genes and memes are process (cybernetic model)
>3. Genes are substance, memes are process (common hybrid)
>4. Memes are substance, genes are process (unknown hybrid)

>The more important question is that raised by Wilkins. Is process model
>more useful than the substance model? Should the construct gene be
>redefined to mean process?
>I'm interested in where people place themselves in my matrix of 4
>possible gene/meme models. Comments would be appreciated.

I'm afraid I still find the isomorphism implied in sticking too rigorously
with the gene/meme analogy a little contrived. (Does that put me in #5 or on
another list?) Of the options above, #2 seems most palatable to this
particular sensibility since process (or information) can express itself in
so many different forms.

-Tim Rhodes

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)