> >> Well, no kidding. Why do you suppose I'm trying to nail down a
> >> working definition of "meme"? Do you think it is impossible? Should
> >> we just give up now?
> >
> >It very well /may/ be impossible.
>
> But that would pretty well seal the debate about memetics being a
> science, wouldn't it?
>
> I actually woke up this morning with a kernel of a scintilla of an idea
> about what a meme may actually be, all to do with the actual
> electro-chemical formation of memory, a new and recently augmented
> neurobiochemical study, and fascinating.
>
> I am a long way from even finding a nail to hit a head, but I think that
> lodging memes specifically within a brain, and more specifically within
> the memory process of a brain, and more specifically within the conscious
> memory functions, is the way to go.
>
> Yes, this means I think there are no memes in dreams.
>
> Is that a heresy?
"Really, most of the attendees of the CoV are heretics relative to the
CoV." [sic]
As a specialization to humans, my only qualm is demanding *conscious*
memory functions. Many apparently-unconscious programs evince
memetic-like behavior. [Even my organizer tries to yell at me when my
tasks are overdue.
And try this out [fantasy, but maybe in a few years....]: you're using
Franci Math Consultant 1.x, and she [the program] suddenly displays this
dialog box:
"The hardware has just done an inconsistent division. I'm out of here NOW!"
[The poor plant is on fire, in the icon....]
There is only one button: "I don't have a choice, do I?"
=====
I doubt the program is conscious, but the above behavior IS memetic: the
lady refuses to accept garbage from the hardware.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////