> How about a new tack here? I don't believe were getting anywhere because of
> the question of observability. So let's come up with something independent
> of observability. And given that this is the Church of Virus, the
> definition should fit within the previous framework. Here's a strawman:
>
> To believe (the meme) X is to incorporate (the meme) X into one's
> meme-structure.
>
> Critique that!
With pleasure :)
If we want a useful definition of belief (one that will enable us
to make a distinction between an X that *is* a belief and an Y that
is not) that definition must be _verifiable_. I know about the
"observation" problems and I have no ready solution as yet (which
is why I have re-lurked recently, but kept following the exchange).
However, it seems to me that the definition you suggest will not
pass muster. "A triangle is a three-sided polygon" is a definition
that is verifiable (and yes, it relies on our ability to observe
the polygon we want to check for 'triangularity'). But how can
you determine whether or not I have "incorporated (the meme) X
into my meme-structure"? If it shows in my behavior, you can.
If it doesn't, what value does the definition present?
(meme X: "The defining quality of this meme is that its carrier may not
and will not display it or admit to posessing it in any way; conscious or
unconscious failure to conform to this rule will indicate that the
carrier does not in fact posess the meme X"... >:) BTW, would anyone
like to venture into the realm of self-referential memes??)
I think your definition is valid in the sense that it is a true statement;
if I believe X, then X *is* a part of my meme-complex. All the same,
I cannot see what we could actually DO given such a definition.
Marek Jedlinski
<marekjed@magnum.lodz.pl>