RE: Inernal meme?

Mark M. Mills (
Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:31:41 -0400

Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:31:41 -0400
From: "Mark M. Mills" <>
Subject: RE: Inernal meme?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9910120040120.7405-100000@polywog.navpoint.c


At 12:47 AM 10/12/99 -0400, you wrote:
>This `belief of' looked at its smallest element can be substantiated by
>a simple analogy, where one may look at the small `bits' which form this
>`belief of' only as a larger whole. The analogy may be a wave in a rope,
>or a neon sign spelling `Eat At Joes.'
>If you stand back and look at the rope you can see the wave travel down
>the rope as it's shaken up and down. However, each atom of the rope
>does not demonstrate the property of a wave. The wave exists AND the
>atoms are following all the laws of physics/chemistry.
>The same may be said of a neon sign spelling `Eat at Joes.' Looking at
>each neon atom, will tell of nothing of the sign's message. However, all
>of the atoms are following the rules of chemistry/physics AND the sign
>is spelling (when standing back looking at it) `Eat at Joes.'

Your rope example is a matter of physics. Your sign example is a matter of
semiotics. I recommend study of the wave equation before trying to relate
the two.


This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)