Re: implied or inferred memes

Bill Benzon (
Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:12:26 -0400

Message-Id: <>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:12:26 -0400
From: (Bill Benzon)
Subject: Re: implied or inferred memes

At 10:15 AM 10/4/99 -0700, Tim Rhodes wrote:
>Bill wrote:
><<<I think that the analogy of a recipe is helpful. I can copy a written
>recipe, but if all I know is the cake, I have no recipe to copy. A good cook
>might be able to come up with a recipe which produces similar cakes, and it
>might even be the same as the original recipe. But reverse engineering is
>*not* imitation.>>>
>This is a good point. I think often we're actually talking about reverse
>engineering when we use the word "imitation". Reverse engineering our
>L-memes from the G-meme behaviors they are meant to "imitate".

However, what if there are 37+ different ways (L-memes) to produce the
G-meme? In that case, the imitation will be successful if anyone of them
is created. Does it make sense to call anyone of them a meme, or the set
as a whole a meme? It's the G-meme that's replicated, not the mental
whatever that subserves it.

William L. Benzon 201.217.1010
708 Jersey Ave. Apt. 2A
Jersey City, NJ 07302 USA

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)