Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!planchet.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: toms@fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: memes Message-ID: Date: 12 Jun 91 16:21:09 GMT Sender: nanotech@planchet.rutgers.edu Organization: NCI Supercomputer Facility, Frederick, MD Lines: 45 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu In article josh@cs.rutgers.edu writes: > (c) It would be a monumental task simply to try to particular > memes making up any significant body of knowledge (or, as I like > to put it for things like astrology, body of ignorance), much less > all of them. Seems to me this is the place to start. You seem to have an idea how to do this task. (I don't know what to do next.) Can you write down a list for starters? Then start to classify later. You can't figure out the classes without the list. So the SECOND step is your: >[(a) we don't even have a classification system for memes. Would > the Dewey Decimal system work? or would that be like classifying > animals by color? Is there some relatively limited number of > memetic "hook" mechanisms? After that you can look into: > (b) Are there regularities in the propagation of memes that can > be expressed as laws like Mendelian genetics? Are there any results > in related fields such as information theory, computer science, > economics, psychology, and of course biology that provide more > than metaphorical guidance? Making your list include information about propagation may eventually let you answer some of these questions. > (d) and for crissakes, let's invent a word to mean "memetic organism" > or "meme complex"! I wouldn't worry about making up words, use plain English until you really find a need for a new term. So let's see your list! > --JoSH] Tom Schneider National Cancer Institute Laboratory of Mathematical Biology Frederick, Maryland 21702-1201 toms@ncifcrf.gov