> On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, Lior Golgher wrote:
>
[CLIP]
> > You're talking about the physical imprint of memes - is that where
> > you're heading?
> > We ususally use memetics to analyze social processes of
> > thought-evolution <urgh, shitty phrasing>. The focus is on the ways a
> > meme influence on our thought.
> > Therefore any definition of meme should focus on its deeds and effects
> > rather than its unclear electro-chemical formation in the brain. That's
> > two points for the current VirLex definition, and none for your
> > suggestion.
>
> Does anyone know the physical substrate for a GENE yet? I thought THAT was
> fairly fuzzy...
More from its variety of implementations at various stages:
DNA ~ long term memory
RNA ~ short term memory
Golgi bodies ~ assembly line
Cell ~ one of X [manufactured]
.... ....
Usually, we restrict our attention to DNA/RNA, and consider the latter
stages to be phenotypes.
> I think I agree with Lior on this one- I'd rather look at memes in their own
> terms, and wait until I understand neurology, psychology and neuroanatomy
> better before I start worrying about the memespace-brain interface.
But we don't know which direction is most effective when, yet!
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////