Re: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?

From: David McFadzean (david@lucifer.com)
Date: Wed Nov 12 2003 - 13:06:14 MST

  • Next message: Blunderov: "RE: virus: Re: X3d Fritz vs Kasparov"

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Keith Henson" <hkhenson@rogers.com>

    > If we *require* an idea to replicate to be a meme or refer to memes as
    > replicating information, then an idea that has not been replicated is at
    > best a *potential* meme, but not a meme by definition. Minor point as long
    > as you understand what is going on. (It is more restrictive to become an
    > "element of culture." That requires enough replication for the pattern to
    > become common.)

    I agree that *if* we require an idea to replicate first to be called
    a meme, then what you say is true. I think it is more useful to
    use a definition like we have for the gene which does not have
    to replicate first.

    > >By analogy, a gene that has not yet been replicated is still a gene.
    >
    > I really don't understand how this could come about. How do you get a
    > gene, even on paper, that has not undergone some kind of replication?

    New genes are created through recombination and mutation. If genes can
    only be inherited, then all existing genes must have existed since
    the beginning of time. Obviously this is not true. This must have come
    from somewhere other than replication.

    The analogy with genetics will be more intuitive and useful if
    we keep the models as similar as possible. Genes don't become
    genes only when they are replicated. Memes are also created
    through recombination and mutation. Isn't that simpler and more
    powerful?

    > I don't find words that have been stretched to encompass everything
    > useful. If you have to ask what a meme "could possibly refer to" then I
    > have a hard time with it pointing to anything at all. This is no doubt my
    > engineering bias showing.

    Perhaps you misunderstood. If I mention a "revenge" meme, do you dismiss
    it out of hand, or do you try to find a possible meme that would fit
    that description?

    > You can tell the difference in a person who has learned some meme like
    > baseball. They can teach it to other people and independent observers can
    > make judgments in good agreement if the kids are playing something
    > recognizable as baseball. I don't see that there is an "I" meme that can
    > be learned or that there is an observable difference in behavior before and
    > after being taught an "I" meme.
    >
    > But I am always willing to be shown differently. Can you think of examples
    > where you could illustrate for the "I" meme?

    The "I" meme is the meme associated with the word "I". Animals don't have it
    because they don't have any words for "I". People with the "I" meme reveal
    themselves by using the word "I" correctly in context. Independent
    observers can make judgments in good agreement that the usage of the
    word is correct and the users understand the meaning of the word.

    ---
    To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 12 2003 - 13:06:28 MST