in the audio i thought i head someoen state that the self wasnt an element of christianity?? is that correct?? would teh verse so as a man thinketh.....counter that??

I think Ken and John hit the nail on the head pretty early on...this "meme" stuff is just contrived way of talking about ideas, intended to force and evolutionary model on it. There is no such thing as a self-replicating idea. To work with Dr. Blackmore's own analogy...if someone makes a picture, and it just lies there and no one ever copies it, what happens? Answer: it just lies there. It is not self-replicating in any way.
This "memetics" stuff is ironic--the atheists who invented it (Richard Dawkins) and promote it (Daniel Dennet, Susan Blackmore) often mock us Christians for seeing God in everything. Memetics is an example of desperately wanting to see evolution in everything. It is no accident that it is promoted by people who are rabidly (even pathetically) anti-religious. And they can't even decide what it is they really believe - on the one hand, we are just helpless blobs of matter being controlled by memes that tell us what to do...on the other, Dr. Blackmore leaps at the idea of us creating memes to change society...we use memes as weapons in some kind of mass thought-control scheme. I don't think one can logically have it both ways.
People have ideas, they share them with each other, sometimes they change them, sometimes they choose not to share them. Slapping a bunch of pseudo-scientific jargon on top of that simple reality does not somehow make it a science - and it certainly does not make it evolution.

Scott, I think the comment was that neither Christianity nor Judaism proposes that the soul simply inhabits the body like some kind of separate thing, as Dr. Blackmore erroneously believes. She stuttered some at that, then skipped away to Buddhism to try and make her point.
Memetics itself is pure nonsense - a completely invented pseudo-science made up by those hoping to promote evolution by making believe that it is everywhere. There is no such thing as a self-replicating "meme" (just watch a poster to see how often it reproduces itself), in fact there is no such thing as a meme - it is a made-up word to pretend that ideas are like genes, and we are merely helpless hosts thereof. "There is no god but Evolution, and Darwin is its prophet."
For that matter, there really is no such thing as a self-replicating gene...in nature, they never exist outside of living things - once outside of them they are dead matter and don't do anything. This should tell us something.

I was struck by the difficulty Ken had with equating memes (and ideas) with genes. He kept getting hung up on the "fact" that genes were self-replicating entities, while memes were not. Of course, genes themselves (stretches of DNA with a certain organization) are *not* self-replicating - they need a host of enzymes and cellular machinery to copy - and they don't "strive" to become more common. Rather, the genes (alleles, actually) that work well in the organisms they inhabit tend to become more common if those organisms survive and reproduce better than the organisms with other versions of the genes. Proliferation of genes is not an "effort" on their part...it just happens when the circumstances are right.
I'd call this difficulty a mistaken effort to place agency with a single entity in the process. Ken shouldn't feel too bad, since Dawkins titled his book "The Selfish Gene," but it is mistaken nonetheless. The real lesson of evolution is that complexity and adaptation to environment happens with no specific agency (perhaps you could argue for agency dispersed between genes, organisms, and environment, including other organisms). Dawkins's great contribution was to point out that we should not ascribe agency solely to organisms, although his reaction is often read as putting all the agency in the genes.
The same argument applies for memes; we should not look for sole agency either in our minds or in the memes. Memes proliferate when the circumstances are right - a meme that our minds want to repeat and copy. Are there tantalizing memes that go viral? Absolutely. Can we decide to close the YouTube window? Well, some of us, some of the time, at least...

One question that came up was whether memetics would make testable predictions. One (analogous with evolution) would be that memes (or ideas) have a history with continuity from parents to offspring over time. A really powerful prediction of evolution is that we should see a hierarchical arrangement of species diversity (this is usually pictured in evolutionary trees called phylogenies), with traits distributed as if they are inherited from common ancestors in the past. This is in contrast with a non-evolutionary view, which could, for example, involve the simultaneous creation of organisms with no trace of common ancestry. Of course, the evidence from living things and fossils is much better explained by the evolutionary account.
If memetics is real, memes (or ideas) should also have a history understandable as they are passed from one person or culture to another. This is so obviously true that it's hard to imagine the alternative - that memes/ideas are independent and spring up randomly, are not picked up from others, and don't spread per se. The fact that we can trace the history of ideas is itself a powerful argument for memetics.
Both of these cases are so intuitive that we forget how tied to an evolutionary mechanism they are. I often ask my students why they don't see squirrels with crab claws. They look confused (not having entertained the possibility) until I explain that evolution from common ancestors would prevent that possibility (i.e. crab claws evolved after crustaceans and vertebrates were separate groups). Perhaps I should also ask why the Incas did not know about Aristotle's elements and qualities while I'm at it!

Dawkins also wrote a little treatise regarding something called extended phenotypes---things or characteristics that appear to be passed through generations exclusive of genetic inducements. Other gurus have asserted that our genes know what we don't know. Maybe so; maybe no... BUT, I will tell you this: I seem to know how to do things I did not learn in school (even when I was paying attention.) I attribute much of this cosmic knowledge to my parents and grandparents. Or, maybe I just know how to do stuff? So---how do I know, hmmmm?
As the great TV talk vocalist used to say: ain't that interestin'? Sure.
The Doctor.