I agree with you 100%. My proposal was meant to be less useful by avoiding
the problems associated with the method of detection. But not all
definitions include the means of detection.
As an example, consider OCR. It is simple to define the letter "A", but it
is extraordinarily difficult to develop and algorithm that reliably detects
all the forms of the letter "A" that we can easily read.
I was hoping merely to present the bare-bones definition that all could
accept (hopefully including Reed), thus closing the thread. Then, we could
discuss how to detect a belief in another person. But that's the part that
I think is futile.
Also, I enjoyed your self-referential meme. Might I suggest its reverse?
Meme Y: "The defining quality of this meme is that its carrier must give the
impression of carrying it, without actually carrying it; conscious or
unconscious failure to imitate possession of this meme will indicate that
the carrier does in fact possess the meme Y"
Yes, it's a little silly. But I think Ken Pantheists will like it.
Dan Henry