At 11:18 AM 10/26/97 -0000, you wrote:
>> From: David McFadzean[SMTP:david@lucifer.com]
>>
>> At 02:01 PM 10/25/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:
>>
>> >If all of these people think information must either be in a mind,
>> >or in an external representation, then I guess maybe I do have
>> >something to contribute to memetics, after all. What do you
>> >think, David? (Don't feel you have to respond if you don't see
>> >what I'm getting at.)
>>
>> Are you suggesting that memes, as information patterns, can
>> have an existence independent of minds and external representations?
>>
>Yes! I think Dawkins' first conception of memes was as
>patterns of behaviour. Assuming Richard is right to say
>he, like these other Big Memeticians, now sees them as
>"in the mind", I think that switch must be due to an
>insight into the ultimate inseperability of what goes on
>"in here" from what we do "out there". But if we recall
>that "meme" is just a word, that can be used in any
>way we want, *and* accept the reality of information
>and of patterns, we can eliminate the subjectivity of
>considerations of what's "in the mind", and the dualism
>of saying memes must be either in it or out in the
>world, by seeing that it's all patterns, both of actual
>behaviour in the world at large *and* of potential
>behaviour within the brain (not the mind), and we
>can use "memes" for either behaviour or potential
>behaviour or both -- that's just a matter of convention
>(though it would be convenient to agree on it).
>
>Hey, remember I said it first! Anyone else who
>claims this one for themselves gets sued! (And
>David can confirm I'm already well into establishing
>a good theoretical basis for this stuff -- though I
>wouldn't expect to get my book published for a year
>or two yet.)
>
>Hey, David, how secure is the archive?
>
>Robin the paranoid designer of fine memes
>who has a living to make
>
>
Marie
Marie L. Foster
<http://www.geocities.com/~mfos/>