>>Memes exist as information[1]. Period.
>
>Says who? If I declare that memes are the base activity of the brain
>during non-autonomous behavior, and also devise a technique to study this
>assertion, who is closer to this thing?
And once _again_ I ask: What does one gain by such a definition of a meme?
Why in Occam's name should we even bring a term like "meme" into a
description of brain activity when already have a whole jargon in the field
that describes brain activity in much more accurate terms?
And what of the evolutionary component to a meme? Where would that take
place using your definition? And if you toss that aspect aside, why even
call the thing a "meme" in the first place?
>And then you present us with this definition of 'information'- after
>having imbibed some Brett-juice, no doubt, with all its flaunting of
>Occam and all its hysterical non-repeatability, and all of its
>unrelatedness to established usage, .... etc, etc.
Sorry, I got it from _Communication Networks: Toward a New Paradigm for
Research_, Everett M. Rogers and D. Lawrence Kincaid (1981). I forgot, the
common man is always 25 to 40 years behind the curve in any research field.
Maybe in 7 or 20 years we can have this conversation again, old man. ;-)
(But "Hysterical non-repeatability", Wade? Are you sure you're not drunk
already?)
And BTW, you missed the obvious retort that electro-chemical impulses in the
brain would also qualify as information under the "differences in
matter-energy" definition. So have another drink.
-Prof. Tim,
who remembers fondly those bygone days when Wade relied on facts more than
rhetoric to make his case and was a match for anyone.