Eric and I seemed to agree that it was not the content but the form and
function which were replicable (but I used content wrong in my post, saying
that the content of a meme was behavior and that behavior was
replicated--implying that content was replicated. I didn't mean to imply
specific behaviors or specific content and that was easily confused...which
might be why Eric wrote that "After all, it is *only* the content that gets
replicated."--meaning form and function? Behavior? I would clarify by
saying NOT the content.)
And in regards to both of these points of clarification: Content specific
"package deals" which get passed along in their entirety--like the "Nike"
name which gets passed along with the slogan "just do it"--are something, if
not memes. "Cancers", maybe?
I want to give examples which would lead both ideas (the meme and the
content specific "cancer") into the physical realm and outside of simply
"mind". So: The weather is a repeatable phenomenon which sets up a
pattern--The land picks up this pattern memetically and performs this
behavior in the form of land regions, desserts, planes, forests, grasslands,
etc..."weather" is a meme (and I think this is a good example; being without
specific content, creating observable behavior, replicating, etc). BUT:
A handfull of pebbles thrown into the sand creates a pattern in the sand
which the wind passes through, temporarily retracing the pattern--Still, the
pattern is negligible in comparison to the content (the stones) and is
erased by the wind...the stones remain relatively unchanged. A cancer? (a
good example to show what happens in the long run to a pattern which is
content specific. It must be picked up and moved piece by piece/ it will
not transfer).
Just wanted to clarify these three points: 1. Yes Tim, those ideas ARE
"something". 2. No, content doesn't get passed along with a meme. 3. The
meme is not just a virus of the mind (in order to spread the meme meme, it
must be generalizable outside of mind...must not be content specific).
Brett
ps...didn't mean to double post, sorry.
At 02:01 AM 8/6/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Tim Abbott wrote:
>> > that is, a meme is a specific *type* of idea, one which is
>> > self-propagating. Any other use of the word is *abuse*[1].
>> Interesting. So all those ideas that float around my head and I wish
>> I had time to write down or work on more but don't, are not memes...
>> Aren't they just unsusccessful memes? Like genetic sports, not viable
>> so they don't reproduce.
>hmmm. I'm rethinking this. No, if the idea doesn't replicate in any
>way, it is *not* a meme. A "potential" meme, yes. But that's like
>"potential" money... don't count your chickens before they hatch!!
>Brett Lane Robertson <unameit@tctc.com> wrote:
>> What is a meme? A PATTERN WHICH HAS NO SPECIFIC CONTENT BUT WHOSE FORM AND
>> FUNCTION GENERALIZES TO CONTENT-SPECIFIC SITUATIONS WHICH ARE THEN ORGANIZED
>> IN SUCH A WAY AS TO PRODUCE A SIMILARLY PATTERNED BEHAVIOR. (my definition)
>See, he agrees with what I said, and with what the book says. (this
>must be one of the first posts of yours, Brett, that I've actually
>understood. Party on! I'm getting smarter!)
>But I'm thinking that this definition is rather strict.
>See, it includes ONLY those things Brodie has called "Virus's of the
>mind" and not, as Dennett originally intended, to include all those
>things which we replicate, for reasons other that commands to replicate.
>Like those little jingles in our head, from all those comericials.
>I would certainly say they deserve to be called "memes", but it is
>obvious that they don't conform to the definition above.
>Nike... just do it.
>Now, perhaps I'm unintentionally broading the field here. Is that a
>meme? Or is it just brainwashing, repeated exposure, that enables use
>to call it up, with just *one* word? Nike...
>So tell me, fellow Memetic Vectors, which is it? Are memes ONLY
>"Virus's of the mind", where form and function are all that matter? Or
>do they also include phrases of content, like most advertising slogans?
>ERiC
>becuase, you see, we need to know how to use these words...
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
If entropy is increasing, where is it coming from?