Also, if you go to the library, ask for any copy paste instruction,
because some of your links give a Page Not Found error. Come on, get
lost

On 3 jul, 07:35, grimeandreason <[email protected]> wrote:
> I utterly disagree.  Your argument are just as relative to genes
> (which cannot be defined as specific units) since the relationship
> between form and function is not based upon one-to-one but one-to-many
> and many-to-one (as they are with memes).  Give me your email and i'll
> send you that paper and chapter from Marion Blute.  I think she nails
> it.  She also answered my question as to whether the terminology of
> memetics inspires unconstructive reactions.
>
> Look, meme is just the terminology I use to conceptualise cultural
> evolution.
>
> As for the rich and famous bollocks you could not be farther from the
> truth!!!  I really couldnt give a rats ass if I die unknown, I've
> already got everything I need in the contentment I have found.  This
> is simply a hobby.
>
> Im really not obsessed by memes.  Its just the terminology through
> which I was introduced to the concept of cultural evolution.  That we
> (body and mind) are the result of two co-evolutionary process is not
> trivial, it's fundamental.
>
> As for trying to pin down a theory, why the hell not?  In mathematics
> as well as reality, complexity theory has shown that nature produces
> complexity from recurring simplicity.  Personally I believe that
> seeing human history and civilisation as anything other than that
> brings about all sorts of philosophical problems.
>
> Lets not get personal shall we?
>
> On 3 July, 00:58, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You are starting to remind me of a fundamentalist. All you have to do
> > is read the bible and all will be revealed.
>
> > A meme has no material corollary. Memes are everything, which means
> > they are nothing. What is a meme? It might be the shape of a big toe
> > on a statue, or the Declaration of Independence; it could be a smiley
> > face :) or the way a person laces his shoes; it might be capitalism
> > itself or a tiny part of the mechanism of trade; an emotional state; a
> > word; a book; a bottle top design. There is no standard means of
> > transmission, no standard means of mutation.
> > Al emetics says is that things that persist, will persist. Big Deal!
> > It is completely useless as an idea.
>
> > On Jul 2, 10:00 pm, grimeandreason <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > there is only a pure chance kind of evolution.
>
> > > A professor at Toronto has given me a proof copy of a chapter of a
> > > book being published by Cambridge University Press.  Her name is
> > > Marion Blute.
>
> > > In it, she conclusively shows that the definition of meme is
> > > absolutely in no way more problematic than the attempts at defining
> > > 'gene' and can therefore not be dismissed a priori.  She herself
> > > doesn't use the phrase, instead talking of cultural transmission
> > > which, funnily enough, isn't instinctively shunned by people that
> > > instinctively shun it.
>
> > > nominal, dont knock it till you read it.  My conclusions also revolve
> > > around an expanding knowledge base as the basis for our cultural
> > > identities.
>
> > > On 2 July, 17:00, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > memes.... pseudo science.....ideas....thoughts.....they CANNOT
> > > > REGENERATE THEMSELVES (EMPHASIS ON THE THEMSELVES)....hence, they
> > > > CANNOT EVOLVE.....look elsewhere for your answer... me, I like
> > > > nominalism.... words , they change their meaning or just become new
> > > > ones as the "Knowledge Base" of the people who use them expands (or
> > > > diminishes)....but it's all haphazard..... not "evolutionary"...
> > > > well , maybe evolutionary but in the "pure chance" sort of way...
>
> > > > On Jun 22, 9:24 am, grimeandreason <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > I have hi hopes for you lot since I have found that the more
> > > > > contemporary the thinking, the more likely they are to get my idea so
> > > > > here goes...
>
> > > > > Its more than just history, its identity, the self, everything
> > > > > humanities.  Its universal, it comes down to simple axioms and is
> > > > > based on mere physical laws like cause and effect.
>
> > > > > I'd really appreciate feedback.  A knowledge of memetics means you're
> > > > > halfway there as it is.  If I show it to a historian, the cognitive
> > > > > science baffles them, and if I show it to science minded people they
> > > > > dont like committing to the big picture implications.
>
> > > > > Its 
> > > > > athttp://sites.google.com/site/grimeandreason/memetics/we-are-what-we-t...
> > > > > or, because you can't comment there (though you can see the matrix in
> > > > > the appendix which blogger couldn't handle), it's also on my 
> > > > > blog,www.grimeandreason.blogspot.comunderthe20/6/2010entry.
>
> > > > > Thanks!
>
> > > > > Ben

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.

Reply via email to