How would it be germane when memetic meaning is in addition to, not instead of, sense perception?

It would be germane because I pointed out that I did not recognise what you said was a meme. You then said back in 580 that such a meme did not exist in me. A different one did. Now, I accepted that, and pointed out that this demonstrated that the 4 note meme wasn’t unitary: that this 4 note meme now required at least two different memes to account for its behavior. You then said “If a night-blind person only sees a silver smear where another person with excellent night sight can point out patterns of light and darkness, does this mean either that the moon does not exist, or that there are multiple moons? The same goes with the tone deaf and the perfect pitch person hearing the same musical phrase.” In the case of the meme, the meme is a subjective phenmenon, and so if you have two different subjective phenomena, you have two different memes: as you said, I had a different meme than the other person, to account for the differential effect of the 4 note phrase. Now: in the case of the moon, if I see two moons, that does not mean that there ARE two moons, becuase the moon (unlike the meme) is not a subjective phenomenon.

(snip)

Sal2: The history of the evolution and propagation of religions, political ideologies, language and art disagree with you. ,

Well, if you have talked with them, bring ‘em here, ‘cause I have a few questions for them.

nonmemes are in the realm of being, and memes possess meaning. That is the distinction. Like between a word and a thing. When the apprehension of a thing causes a word for it to come to mind from memory, the thing is not the meme; the word called to mind is. The thing is just a perceptual trigger causing its appearance. For instance, to someone unaware of written language, a printed word is just a meaningless visual configuration.

Beautiful! Except there is no way of knowing if anything has no meaning, because firstly, that is asking someone to demonstrate a negative, and secondly, given human nature, I can’t think of something that has no meaning.

(snip)

Sal2: No it doesn’t. The selfsame causes can have different effects when they encounter different objects. The effect of one billiard ball on another is not the same as its effect on a boulder or a bowl of jello.
Your definition would entail that there are no such things as words, because two people hearing the selfsame word can have different things come to mind because of it. Therefore I insist that you answer me without using these word thingies that you insist are nonexistent, according to your spurious logic.

No, my definition would say that there is no such thing as a meme as a causally efficaceous unit. Full stop. Words are still possible, even with very low reproductive fidelity. I am NOT saying that there cannot be anything such as a meme. I AM saying that if there is such a thing, it isn’t a word, or a melody, or any of the other examples you are giving.