Re: virus: Meme vs concept
Tom Loeber (chiploeber@telis.org)
Tue, 14 May 1996 02:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
Bill Bodby wrote:
>
>Why the rag on meme and this discussion list? I personally don't take the
>Church of Virus that seriously, at least to consider it as a religion, I
>hate religion, rather I'm more interested in the discussions, there is no
>one in this group that's ruling on validity to my knowledge.
>
I'm human and like all humans, I have the capacity to transcend the mundane,
BUT I have my limits. I'm not powerful enough to make any "ruling"
(enforced judgement?) on validity. The power may never be mine to exercise.
If a sufficient number of people do find something of "validity" and virtual
necessity for their lives, then the power to act on their beliefs may be
forthcoming.
>
>Regarding memes I prefer the word "meme" since it implies both memory and
>gene, which is what it is meant to do. I don't quite see how concept
>fulfills this criteria. They may indeed both be very similar or even the
>same thing depending upon your definition, however, the "concept" of meme is
>meant to help us think about seemingly abstract non-materialistic concepts,
>ideas, and ultimately language, as material. It must be considered within
>the context of cognitive science. It's always been the case that when new
>theories emerge so also do terminologies, the question is do they work, do
>they help elucidate and understand the theory. I would say that "meme" is
>very useful in stimulating new thinking about ideas and language if nothing
>else.
>
First, what new theories?
Genetic memory has been postulated and sought without any real evidence to
it's existence except, of course, the generation of phenotype and genotype,
as far as I know. In fact, memory as we conventionally use the term seems
to be distributed rather than located in any specific molecular sites. I do
agree that, "meme" is serving to stimulate illucidation of my own
understanding right here and now. After all, trial and error is one of the
major ways to learn.