Re: memetics-digest V1 #137

t (
Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:48:34 +0100

From: <>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:48:34 +0100
Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #137

UEA wrote:

> bruce wrote:
> > 1e. How exactly are memes like or unlike viruses, computer or biological?
> Viruses are self-replicating, memes are replicated by other beings to
> whom they give some advantage.
> This definitional distinction rests on Dennett's Cui Bono? question, and this is very difficult to test empirically. How are you going to
> do the proper cost-benefit analysis to determine whether something was replicated because it advantaged some "other being" (note also
> that some reductionists don't even believe in this question - the only "advantage" is that of the meme itself).
> A similar definition to get around this problem might be that a meme is something that CANNOT physically replicate itself - it needs
> something else - a meme carrier of sorts - in order to be replicated. Although viruses need "hosts", they can physically replicate
> themselves, they don't rely on an extra machine or carrier (a phenotype?) to do it for them.
> Alex.

Dear Alex and Bruce,

If you ask me as a biologist: a virus can't replicate itself. It depends on the cellular machinery of a host to be replicated. So do
plasmids, and so do behaviours, ideas, fashions. Although from an informational point of view, I since a few years do not consider the latter
as memes (the analogs of genes).

Mario Vaneechoutte.

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)