
From what I've read it's supposed to be a unit of measurement but I've never heard something described as "2.5 memes".
EVERYONE STOP SAYING IT PLEASE
( ,
Tue 17 Feb 2009, 2:40,
archived)
EVERYONE STOP SAYING IT PLEASE

There are lots of occurrences of "genetic unit", "sub-unit", "basic unit", "working unit", and so on. I think it's mostly used to identify things that don't consist of smaller parts that compete among themselves. (Or, maybe they could do, but are unlikely to, because variations make the thing break. Or something. I'm just making this up.)
Meme: "a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation."
Nobody's sure where a gene starts and ends, anyway, it's arbitrary.
"So far I have talked of memes as though
it was obvious what a single unit-meme consisted of. But of course it is
far from obvious. I have said a tune is one meme, but what about a
symphony: how many memes is that? Is each movement one meme, each
recognizable phrase of melody, each bar, each chord, or what?
I appeal to the same verbal trick as I used in Chapter 3. There I divided
the 'gene complex' into large and small genetic units, and units within
units. The 'gene' was defined, not in a rigid all-or-none way, but as a unit
of convenience, a length of chromosome with just sufficient copying fidelity
to serve as a viable unit of natural selection."
( ,
Tue 17 Feb 2009, 2:59,
archived)
Meme: "a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation."
Nobody's sure where a gene starts and ends, anyway, it's arbitrary.
"So far I have talked of memes as though
it was obvious what a single unit-meme consisted of. But of course it is
far from obvious. I have said a tune is one meme, but what about a
symphony: how many memes is that? Is each movement one meme, each
recognizable phrase of melody, each bar, each chord, or what?
I appeal to the same verbal trick as I used in Chapter 3. There I divided
the 'gene complex' into large and small genetic units, and units within
units. The 'gene' was defined, not in a rigid all-or-none way, but as a unit
of convenience, a length of chromosome with just sufficient copying fidelity
to serve as a viable unit of natural selection."

none of these things are described as such, yet "SO I HERD YOU LIEK MUDKIPS" is.
( ,
Tue 17 Feb 2009, 3:18,
archived)

I can see where he's coming from but I'd rather the word 'gene' get quantified instead of applying the same ambiguities to a new word.
( ,
Tue 17 Feb 2009, 3:27,
archived)

He's a pseudo scientific fraud. Not to say his critics are any better.
( ,
Tue 17 Feb 2009, 3:32,
archived)

Identifying their limits means predicting what form they will survive in, which is a thing best established by waiting (forever) to find out. Besides, they'll mostly only be stable for a while, and then be superseded. So it's a necessary word for a thing that definitely exists as a (semi-)coherent entity but can't be precisely delineated.
( ,
Tue 17 Feb 2009, 3:34,
archived)

*urge to kill grows*
It's(genes) a convention for discussion and
has no basis in reality, FFS. Semi my ass.
( ,
Tue 17 Feb 2009, 3:39,
archived)
It's(genes) a convention for discussion and
has no basis in reality, FFS. Semi my ass.

PLSFIXKTHX! Sorry, but that is silly talk.
Hit the biochemistry books. You'll hurt
yourself thinking like that. Timecubes hoooo!
( ,
Tue 17 Feb 2009, 3:46,
archived)
Hit the biochemistry books. You'll hurt
yourself thinking like that. Timecubes hoooo!

it's not very objective of me.
Some things are briefly stable - windspeeds, orbits - and it's a subjective judgment whether or not a particular one is stable enough to be declared to exist. I suppose the thing to do with a gene or a meme is to declare some arbitrary context, the same way that you might say windspeed as measured over the course of a minute, which would be different from the speed measured over an hour. Either could be used when talking about the speed "now". Stable states definitely exist in an objective way, but they exist as part of a continuum. The pockets of stability aren't just in our imaginations, but the limits of the pockets are. Come to think of it, most things are like this a bit. Objects, for instance. We just have a lot of very customary conventions for assuming where edges go.
( ,
Tue 17 Feb 2009, 3:51,
archived)
Some things are briefly stable - windspeeds, orbits - and it's a subjective judgment whether or not a particular one is stable enough to be declared to exist. I suppose the thing to do with a gene or a meme is to declare some arbitrary context, the same way that you might say windspeed as measured over the course of a minute, which would be different from the speed measured over an hour. Either could be used when talking about the speed "now". Stable states definitely exist in an objective way, but they exist as part of a continuum. The pockets of stability aren't just in our imaginations, but the limits of the pockets are. Come to think of it, most things are like this a bit. Objects, for instance. We just have a lot of very customary conventions for assuming where edges go.

Don't take my over the top reactions as more than that.
Sloppy language of that sort can get me ranting for hours. [/;-D
on edit: Much better and more useful. That's more like tool making, not assigning the screwdriver as hammer and nail.
( ,
Tue 17 Feb 2009, 3:54,
archived)
Sloppy language of that sort can get me ranting for hours. [/;-D
on edit: Much better and more useful. That's more like tool making, not assigning the screwdriver as hammer and nail.

I apologise for doing all my writing in the form of edits, it's a compulsion.
( ,
Tue 17 Feb 2009, 4:00,
archived)

My apologies if I upset you in any way.
( ,
Tue 17 Feb 2009, 4:24,
archived)

at what length of string a noticeable characteristic occurs should be pretty measurable, even if some are much longer than others.
As long as you've got a point of reference (for example, how the celsius scale has 0 degrees as the freezing point of water) then I can't see why it would be difficult.
I was working in a forensic lab when the human genome got released and sat around with my boss (who located the gene that causes alzheimers when he was younger) and we got pissed and read out pages to each other "G, C, T, G, G, A, G" etc. Yes, we're funny funny guys. Anyway, surely some number of amino acids could be used as a standard form of measurement?
( ,
Tue 17 Feb 2009, 3:46,
archived)
As long as you've got a point of reference (for example, how the celsius scale has 0 degrees as the freezing point of water) then I can't see why it would be difficult.
I was working in a forensic lab when the human genome got released and sat around with my boss (who located the gene that causes alzheimers when he was younger) and we got pissed and read out pages to each other "G, C, T, G, G, A, G" etc. Yes, we're funny funny guys. Anyway, surely some number of amino acids could be used as a standard form of measurement?

You used that "gene that causes alzheimers" bit just to
watch my head explode didn't you? ARGH FUCK KILL!!!!!
( ,
Tue 17 Feb 2009, 3:51,
archived)
watch my head explode didn't you? ARGH FUCK KILL!!!!!

"Locus that highlights a predisposition to alzheimer's disease"
What the fuck would I know anyway? I was the admin manager and I was only a year or two out of high school.
( ,
Tue 17 Feb 2009, 4:00,
archived)
What the fuck would I know anyway? I was the admin manager and I was only a year or two out of high school.

Won't beat up on your second revision, even though it is still in error.
I AM NOT A CUNT, REALLY, THEY ARE MAKING ME THIS WAY!!!
( ,
Tue 17 Feb 2009, 4:05,
archived)
I AM NOT A CUNT, REALLY, THEY ARE MAKING ME THIS WAY!!!

You know, like not saying meme.
( ,
Tue 17 Feb 2009, 4:15,
archived)

I might not, as I also find it a rather meaningless term.
edit: SHIT DUDE, I did, but from a lyric that goes "Me me..."
www.b3ta.com/board/9193353
( ,
Tue 17 Feb 2009, 4:16,
archived)
edit: SHIT DUDE, I did, but from a lyric that goes "Me me..."
www.b3ta.com/board/9193353

Our internet text memes and image memes and link memes are trivial little things that breed rampantly. They're a new type of joke. We spread them semi-deliberately, as well. Spreading them is part of the fun. The ones that it seems like the greatest exploit to spread will be very successful, although that's tempered by part the challenge being to popularise things that really ought to be unpopular, e.g. Rick Astley.
( ,
Tue 17 Feb 2009, 3:29,
archived)

in the Blind Watchmaker as well.
I heartily agree with this neologism and condone its use in and out of context.
( ,
Tue 17 Feb 2009, 3:18,
archived)
I heartily agree with this neologism and condone its use in and out of context.