Re: virus: Re: Rationality (meme make-up)

Robin Faichney (r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk)
Fri, 21 Mar 1997 10:17:00 -0000

jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com wrote:
> From: Robin Faichney <r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk>
>>
>> jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com wrote:
>>
>> >Martz suggests that the
>> >smallest meme is the smallest thing that means anything to us, but then
>> >we have the problem of what is meaning?
>>
>> Data has meaning (is information, is a meme) if it affects behaviour.
>
>But is that the same level of meaning for everyone? Can something affect
>the behaviour of one person, whilst leaving another unchanged?

A given item obviously might mean different things to different
people, and nothing at all to some. A word in a language with
which you're totally unfamiliar is an obvious example. I think
the only reasonable position on this is that if a certain piece
of data has any meaning to anyone then it's a meme. (Except
for the usual proviso that you might want to see at least one
replication first. And that you might want to say it's not the
data that's the meme, but the meaning. Don't forget this is
all "just" a metaphor!)

--
Robin Faichney
r.j.faichney@stirling.ac.uk
http://www.stir.ac.uk/envsci/staff/rjf1/