Re: virus: Is the term "meme" necessary?

John Porter (jporter@btg.com)
Tue, 14 May 1996 10:08:13 -0400

Tom Loeber wrote:
> Richard Brodie wrote:
> >The relationship between "meme" and "concept" is much like the
> >relationship between "mass" and "weight". While you could often
> >interchange the words and still make sense, the former carries with it a
> >whole scientific model and thereby focuses your thinking in a useful
> >way.
> >
> What? Huh? Doesn't weight have a "scientific model" interpretation also? In
> fact, weight's scientific model includes multiple masses and gravity, a good
> deal more encompassing than just mass. "Mass" is a singular phenomenon.
> "Weight" is a relationship.

Sounds like "includes multiple masses and gravity"
= "a good deal more encompassing" = "better, nyah nyah."

Not to nitpick on what is admittedly a tangent, but:
1. "weight's scientific model includes multiple masses" is a meaningless
statement.
2. mass, a "singular phenomenon" if you will, is an intrinsic property of
matter and of any chunk of matter. Weight is not; it is derivative; it is
dependent on the matter's environment.
Not they aren't both useful to know. But if you know the weight, all you know
is the force needed to keep the object stationary under some acceleration
(such as gravity). Knowing the mass is knowing a great deal more than this.

John Porter
jporter@btg.com