I like Dennett too, but I am not sure I am sold on the ideas of memes. Certainly from the perspective of the conference. How do you think memes would resolve any of the binding problems?
I am sort of curious: people talk about memes as this really groovy explanation, but I can't see them as being an improvement over the ideas associated with cognition. How is 'memetics' a more powerful tool for understanding thoughts, emotions, or consciousness, than those developed in cognitive neuroscience (which lack any mention of memes).
>> From: email@example.com (Patrick Wilken)
>> THE UNITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS:
>> BINDING, INTEGRATION, AND DISSOCIATION
>> Universite Libre de Bruxelles
>> JUNE 29th - JULY 2nd, 2000: BRUSSELS, BELGIUM
>> -- Please suggest other sample topics, or modify the above!!
>There's absolutely no mention of *memetics* in your list of topics, nor in
>your entire email. Aren't you missing something important ?
>`Memes' are a big component of the set of things that make people work,
>therefore logically the science of memetics should give at least some
>insights into consciousness. Personally, I'm convinced that memetics can
>explain *a lot* about consciousness. See e.g. Daniel C. Dennett's book
>`Consciousness Explained'. (Yes, I'm a Dennett fan :-).)
>Yours, Menno Rubingh (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Editor: PSYCHE: An International Journal of Research on Consciousness Board Member: The Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/ http://assc.caltech.edu/