Re: virus: hell and o

B. Lane Robertson (metaphy@hotmail.com)
Mon, 06 Jul 1998 20:40:47 PDT


Even though I admit that ONE way to characterize a
meme is according to the "connections between neural
cells"; it seems, again, superfluous to speak of a
meme thus characterized if-- in fact-- the memetic
unit is not reducible from two separate incidences
(if the "meme" in the first brain isn't the same as
the "meme" in the second brain... then why call "it"
a *meme*).

One characteristic of a meme is that it exists so as
to replicate itself. Even assuming that the memeset
within which the meme manifests is different from
one structure to another... what is to keep us from
localizing the meme proper in another form such that
its consistency is noted in its transmission from
one set of cells to another?

For example, assume that two sets of different cells
produce a behavior which is reducible to a specific
chemical pattern traceable from one set of cells to
the other (or that the behavior is traceable...
though that area seems reserved for evolutionary
biologists and psychologists rather than memeticists
according to the current thinking on this list).
Anyway, if this chemical pattern is the same from
one person to another, and if THIS is found to be
the meme (which replicates itself from one host to
another); then, why remain focused on the difference
and demand that THIS represent the meme?

B. Lane Robertson
Indiana, USA
http://www.window.to/mindrec
Bio: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay
See who's chatting about this topic:
http://www.talkcity.com/chat.cgi?room=MindRec

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com