> And, no, I do not buy into the idea that
> memes are "abstract concepts".
Okay, I am trying to understand what you're saying. But I'm a little
dense sometimes.
Do you think memes are *real*physical*objects*? Maybe patterns of neurons
or such? If so, you're part of a very large and well respected camp and I
won't argue with you on that theory. (Although I, personally, don't find
it a useful way of looking at the process.)
I think our confusion stems from the word "content". I don't know if
information (or content, as I was using it) actual "moves" from person to
person or if the pattern of information is reconstructed inside the other
persons head. This seems like un-useful distinction. The process is the
same either way. (And I've watched debates about it degrade into flame
wars and I don't think we need that here.) My focus is on the mechanics
of the process. Where in your brain a meme resides compared to the
same/similar meme in my brain doesn't have to enter into that.
BTW, I'm not Wade, ;-) "Abstract concepts" is not a put down. Some of my
best friends (and my most useful Muse) are abstract concepts.
-Prof. Tim