In your previous post you said 'muscle contraction itself is a complex
web of memes'. That's what I was taking issue with.
>If we consider humans
>to be memetic entities, then a muscle is a subdivision of such.
Yes. And? The properties don't necessarily propogate downwards like
that. I'm now looking at a monitor. Does that mean that the power switch
is also a monitor? Or a single atom of glass? If you want to introduce
that sort of inheritance I'm afraid you'll have to justify it.
>> >I'm sure that in each of these processes, there are smaller memes than that,
>> >also. What do you think?
>>
>> There are smaller things but they are not memes. Not by any definition
>> I've come across anyway.
>
>What are they then? Are /they/ hardwired?
There are interactions between individual molecules. I wouldn't call
those memes for the reason reproduced below.
>> I doubt we can take it down to the level of a single neuron. I would
>> guess that the smallest unit would be the smallest number of neurons
>> whose co-ordinated firing can be said to have 'meaning' to us on a
>> macroscopic scale.
>
>That's a good start. Question now, is: What has meaning to us?
I don't think we know yet. I think some major advances are required in
the fields of neuroscience, artificial intelligence and psychology
before we'll be able to answer that in anything but a broad-brush
manner.
>> >What use is a meme that is so small?
>>
>> What use is a gene that is so small?
>
>On its own, is it any use? Sorry, this is what I meant.
Possibly not. Just as a single word may be fairly useless, when combined
in a particular way you get a work of art.
>> Some small things have
>> huge effects.
>
>;)
Are you trying to tell me something? (Have I pulled again?)
-- Martz martz@martz.demon.co.ukFor my public key, <mailto:m.traynor@ic.ac.uk> with 'Send public key' as subject an automated reply will follow.
No more random quotes.