RE: virus: Together or Not

Robin Faichney (r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk)
Thu, 27 Nov 1997 19:06:35 -0000

> From: Wade T.Smith[SMTP:wade_smith@harvard.edu]
>
> ><Consciousness> is obviously a meme.
>
> Well, within our local lexicon, yes, putting anything within '<>'
> makes
> it a meme. (Or makes us start to think of it as one.)
>
No, you don't seem to have gotten the point of this.
There's a difference between the concept of C, and
the reality to which that concept refers. The former
is a meme, the latter is not. Assuming, that is, C is
like most things, which it probably isn't. '<>' is
analogous to '""'. The latter signifies the word, as
opp. what it stands for, the former, the meme, as
opp. what it stands for. Except that, just like words,
not all memes stand for things.

> But I am not convinced Consciousness is a meme.
>
I guess you mean "a mere meme". (Typing that is
easier than saying it.)

> Far from it. From this
> vantage point, it seems to be an evolutionary development of neural
> tissues, with neural complexity being a determinant.
>
Ha! How do you know it even exists?! Show me some!

> As it is only a part of the set of necessary and sufficient conditions
>
> for cultural action, it is not a meme by my presently operating
> definition.
>
Waffle.

> It is one of the necessary prerequisites for a culture, though, IMO. I
> am
> unwilling, so far, to place a culture outside the boundaries of
> consciousness.
>
Hyperwaffle.

> This may appear to be a hidebound attitude to some, if not to me.
>
Hidebound? It's hideous!

Robin the neophyte would-be humourist