Are Memes Taking Over?

[bokonon]

I mean, are you contesting that there are ideas which can be considered units of copyable information?

No, I think all ideas can be considered units of copyable information (see any opening sequence of The Simpsons for an illustration).

 

[Nick227]

Mathematically likely? There is no way to calculate because there are far too many hidden variables, like the rest of the future.

Think about what it would take for technology to eradicate us. That would mean that we have built -- driven by whatever process -- fully functional AI machines. To be able to decide to replace us they would require an inner drive (and I'm not talking Celeron processor here).

Natural selection would not necessarily require that the machine took a decision to eradicate us. It could simply be that memetic pressure destabilised the environmental conditions necessary for human life. Let's face it, there's already plenty of evidence to suggest this could be happening.

Humans have evolved to the top of the life tree (or at least they have evolved the capacity to consider themselves as such) but not through any conscious effort to do so. It is simply because that is what happened for genes in this environment through the evolutionary algorithm. Things can change.

We don't even know how our motivation systems work yet, so it is unlikely that we could build that into a cybernetic system anytime soon; and there is no reason to suppose that we would want to do so.

Look, memes are us in addition to the way our minds work from our genetic heritage.

Well, we don't know to what degree memes caused the development of the modern human brain. It might turn out to be very largely memetic itself.

They don't control us, because to control us requires that we are something separate from them. There are millions of competing memes out there (and in here) just as there are several competing internal drives in us. One of our internal drives is self-preservation. We all know the Terminator/Matrix possibilities -- we write stories and make movies about them. Do you not think that our own internal drive toward self-preservation would be enough to counter any techno-meme, since we are the one's who build the bodies that house those techno-memes and decide on their internal structure?

I don't know. That is why I bring it up and support Blackmore to lobby for more research.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

No, I think all ideas can be considered units of copyable information (see any opening sequence of The Simpsons for an illustration).

So, would you consider that the human brain might be an environment where these units could be stored and transmitted?

And that there might be certain units of information that could prove useful to achieving the genetically-derived goals of an organism?

Next, would you consider that the ability to copy could itself be genetically favoured?

Then would you consider that the ability to copy would in such conditions render the organism a more popular prospect for sex?

Nick

 

[cyborg]

If an organism requires vitamin C to be healthy, a gene which enables the organism to make vitamin C is a tool which the organism uses (albeit not consciously)

Right - so why are you so sure that "ideas" are "tools" which we necessarially use consciously? The subtly of the fact that memes are about mimicry and not ideas is that it is NOT important whether or not you have any idea at all about why or how a meme is useful. It is only sufficient that you copy it.

Much as one can argue that biological organisms are complex machines for propagating genes it is being argued that people are complex machines for propagating memes. Your issue is that this places the "control" outside the organism. (As if we were really all-powerful masters of our destiny.)

My point is simple: it is just as valid to turn the equation around and ask is it the function or is it the input that is in control of the output? The answer is of course that both are - but viewing the proposition from the viewpoint that one or the other is "in control" yields interesting insights.

Yes, the ideas which are useful to people are more fit.

Is it really more useful to people if this year's colour is orange rather than mauve?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Natural selection would not necessarily require that the machine took a decision to eradicate us. It could simply be that memetic pressure destabilised the environmental conditions necessary for human life. Let's face it, there's already plenty of evidence to suggest this could be happening.

Humans have evolved to the top of the life tree (or at least they have evolved the capacity to consider themselves as such) but not through any conscious effort to do so. It is simply because that is what happened for genes in this environment through the evolutionary algorithm. Things can change.

OK, but that, again, is not a meme destroying us. It is us destroying us. "Us" is consituted by many different competing memes in association with "our" motivation system.

What is the difference between saying "memes" caused global warming and "humans" caused global warming?

The problem I have with all of this is conceptual -- she seems to be treating replicating ideas as something separate from human beings. Granted, it is potentially possible for machines to make machines, but to be concerned that that would destabilize the environment would just be us doing it to the environment the same as we have in the current situation (to the extent that we are doing it) because we -- the bundle of memes and genetic information/desires -- built those machines in the first place.

I don't see what benefit anyone gets out of talking about memes taking over anything. How is this any different from what we used to say -- that humans are limited creatures and we make dumb decisions sometimes? I don't think it adds anything to the conversation to say that memes were responsible for what happened on Easter Island rather than to say that humans can be right stupid and short-sighted.

To repeat as it relates to machines -- we would need to give them a will for them to do anything on their own. Why would we want to do that? We use machines as tools. To give them a will would be to make them into a different form of us.

It's just a different level of discourse that has the potential to confuse people.

 

[bokonon]

The usual way that sexual selection is discussed concerns selection for particular traits that do not provide direct survival value but work as proxies for good genes -- peacocks with big tails can afford those big tails because they carry good genes.

Okay, so "good ideas" are a proxy for "good genes" and this means they cooperate how?

If someone has been exposed to good ideas, all that is really required is genes (intelligence) "good enough" to recognize the good idea when it sees one. Someone with equally good (or even possibly better) genes who hasn't been exposed to the good idea may still be at a disadvantage if they haven't been exposed to the good idea. The Conquistadors probably didn't have better brains than the people they eliminated, and those wielding the weapons didn't invent them.

Stepping back to the time when our path diverged from that of the chimpanzees, it seems likely that the ability to make, use, and improve tools (including the tool of language) probably did press us in the direction of bigger brains. I'm still having a hard time seeing how this justifies using the word "cooperate" for genes and ideas, except in the sense of "operate together". If that's how the OP meant it, my disparagement was unjustified.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Okay, so "good ideas" are a proxy for "good genes" and this means they cooperate how?

If someone has been exposed to good ideas, all that is really required is genes (intelligence) "good enough" to recognize the good idea when it sees one. Someone with equally good (or even possibly better) genes who hasn't been exposed to the good idea may still be at a disadvantage if they haven't been exposed to the good idea. The Conquistadors probably didn't have better brains than the people they eliminated, and those wielding the weapons didn't invent them.

Stepping back to the time when our path diverged from that of the chimpanzees, it seems likely that the ability to make, use, and improve tools (including the tool of language) probably did press us in the direction of bigger brains. I'm still having a hard time seeing how this justifies using the word "cooperate" for genes and ideas, except in the sense of "operate together". If that's how the OP meant it, my disparagement was unjustified.

Cooperate is the wrong word, because that implies agency; and memes do not have agency of their own, nor do genes. Operate together is probably a much better way to say it, but even that is a bit of an anthropomorphism, as you know.

 

[bokonon]

So,
And
Next,
Then

Yep, sure, yes, possibly.

 

[Nick227]

OK, but that, again, is not a meme destroying us. It is us destroying us. "Us" is consituted by many different competing memes in association with "our" motivation system.

What is the difference between saying "memes" caused global warming and "humans" caused global warming?

As far as I'm concerned it depends on what gets us to take the issue seriously. It could well be that distinguishing between genetic selfhood and memetic selfhood, gene and meme, provides a mechanism by which humans can start to really deal with these things. Memetic theory provides a means to understand much very confusing human action. It allows a separation to start to take place. It allows us to start to reclaim our biological identity.

The problem I have with all of this is conceptual -- she seems to be treating replicating ideas as something separate from human beings.

And you don't? The idea no longer needs a human for storage. It no longer needs a human for transmission.

Granted, it is potentially possible for machines to make machines, but to be concerned that that would destabilize the environment would just be us doing it to the environment the same as we have in the current situation (to the extent that we are doing it) because we -- the bundle of memes and genetic information/desires -- built those machines in the first place.

Are you really saying that you accept that self-replicating machines might wipe out humanity but this is ok because we've only got ourselves to blame?

I don't see what benefit anyone gets out of talking about memes taking over anything. How is this any different from what we used to say -- that humans are limited creatures and we make dumb decisions sometimes? I don't think it adds anything to the conversation to say that memes were responsible for what happened on Easter Island rather than to say that humans can be right stupid and short-sighted.

To repeat as it relates to machines -- we would need to give them a will for them to do anything on their own. Why would we want to do that? We use machines as tools. To give them a will would be to make them into a different form of us.

It's just a different level of discourse that has the potential to confuse people.

It also has the potential to create change. Our natural, genetic response to parasitic infection is far greater than to something we consider we're doing to ourselves. Meme theory provides the opportunity to reidentify with our genetic ancestry.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Stepping back to the time when our path diverged from that of the chimpanzees, it seems likely that the ability to make, use, and improve tools (including the tool of language) probably did press us in the direction of bigger brains. I'm still having a hard time seeing how this justifies using the word "cooperate" for genes and ideas, except in the sense of "operate together". If that's how the OP meant it, my disparagement was unjustified.

You don't consider that the capacity to use ideas could be genetically favoured? In creating an environment in the brain where ideas can take root and be shared so a second replicator is set loose. [cue stirring music]

Nick

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

As far as I'm concerned it depends on what gets us to take the issue seriously. It could well be that distinguishing between genetic selfhood and memetic selfhood, gene and meme, provides a mechanism by which humans can start to really deal with these things. Memetic theory provides a means to understand much very confusing human action. It allows a separation to start to take place. It allows us to start to reclaim our biological identity.

How?

And you don't? The idea no longer needs a human for storage. It no longer needs a human for transmission.

Storage isn't an issue. Transmission is, and it does still need a human for transmission because we have yet to build machines with their own will.

Are you really saying that you accept that self-replicating machines might wipe out humanity but this is ok because we've only got ourselves to blame?

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. I would say that if we built self-replicating machines it would be our fault because I see no reason for us to build such machines that have their own will.

Ideas, by themselves, have no ability to replicate. They replicate in us because we have desires/wills. They could not do so in a machine world unless we gave that machine world desires and/or wills. Why would we do that? What purpose would that serve?

It also has the potential to create change. Our natural, genetic response to parasitic infection is far greater than to something we consider we're doing to ourselves. Meme theory provides the opportunity to reidentify with our genetic ancestry.

Nick

Again, I say, how and what in the world does that mean? How does that differ from saying that we can deal with one idea by thinking of another?

 

[Dragoonster]

I think it's a bit of a stretch of the concept of "idea" to suggest that this seasons choice of fashionable colour is an "idea".

What can "memetics" inform us of the variations in fashion sense that psychology, sociology, economics, etc. can't?

I think it's probably garbage. Not a new science or subscience or necessary mapping tool, merely an invention of a new word. One that can be plugged in just about anywhere as a sloppy metaphor or meta-metaphor for the choice-selection process that's going on. Commenting on its own importance, yet never informing of anything that's actually relevant, or new. It doesn't need to--the actual sciences and tools of the topic in question are capable of doing so already.

Why is orange in this year? Memetics can't tell us, it can only broadly state/repeat "because most people prefer orange this year for some reason". Actual reasons could be:

*Variations of global dye production made orange dye favorable to manufacturers
*Donna Karen decided to use orange in her line, and generics added orange to make their clothing appear more couture
*The previous colors of the seasons were purple, blue, red, green, yellow, orange is a nice change
*India implemented a new nationalistic policy that favors their national colors, and their manufacturers are favoring orange over green
*A popular celebrity wowed the world at the Oscars by wearing a brilliant orange dress
*The Great Pumpkin finally revealed itself to Linus in Peanuts, and people want to celebrate this
*A new Wal-Mart CEO decided that since orange is his favorite color, he'd greatly favor showing orange clothing in all Wal-Marts
*We are genetically predisposed to favoring orange over other colors, except when we don't
*Due to environmental changes the air carries the orange wavelength different this season, making it more pleasing to the human eye-brain than other colors

Can memetics tell us any of this? Nope, it just tells us that "favoring orange in fashion is a new meme!" Same deal for a more general discussion on why some societies favor certain colors, or why humans in general favor certain colors. If you want to actually know why, you call on sociology, economics, natural resources available, popular and personal psychology, brain-structure, etc. If you want to fake that you know why, you say it's because of memetics and leave it at that.

 

[RandFan]

Sure. The idea was a tool used by people, most of whom did not commit suicide.

It doesn't answer the question. Why did those who commit suicide do so?

But that's fine. Aren't genes just tools?

And the language of their parents. I don't mind following the metaphor and suggesting that this somewhat "immunizes" them to other religions and other languages after a certain age. It's still just a metaphor for an idea.

I'm not sure how asserting that "it's still just a metaphor" is argument or addresses the point made.

Yes, the ideas which are useful to people are more fit.

As are genes. I don't think you are obviating any point made by Blackmore. A gene that can help perpetuate the human race is evolutionary fit. Genes aren't conscious. They don't really care about themselves and they most certainly are not "selfish" in any conscious way. They simply benefit the organisms that they exist in thereby benefiting themselves. Memes do the same. That's all. I think you are putting more into the idea than is warranted. A gene is simply a biological packet of information. An algorithm that is capable of replicating. A meme is the digital version. If it helps for you to call it metaphor then that's fine. In the end we can trace the evolution of memes and categorize them like we can genes. We can see how they mutate and how they change the course of civilizations as they mutate. That might not be of any consequence to you but it is vitally important to anthropologists.

Why do some people mutilate the genitalia of their children? Are those people biologically different from other humans? Does the mutilation serve the society? To what extent? Are these people victim of a group of memes that control the world view of the participants to serve the meme more than the group or the individual? Can the memes be easily removed? Why or why not? If memes are just tools then why can't these people see that these are lousy tools? A gun is easily recognizable as superior to a bow and arrow. Why are destructive memes so much more difficult to eradicate? Isn't because the meme works to protect itself more than the individual, like a parisite?

The tool metaphor is very poor and leaves too many unanswered questions. The comparison to genes or virus or parasite is every so much better to answer questions.

I haven't, though I saw Dennett had a video on the same page as Blackmore, which may be him delivering a talk on that topic.

It's a great talk.

 

[bokonon]

Right - so why are you so sure that "ideas" are "tools" which we necessarially use consciously?

I don't think they're necessarially used consciously, but (unlike our genes at present) the option for conscious control is always available.

The subtly of the fact that memes are about mimicry and not ideas is that it is NOT important whether or not you have any idea at all about why or how a meme is useful. It is only sufficient that you copy it.

Okay, so if I put on a white leisure suit and "do The Hustle," I can get laid in 1980. If I don't, I may have to wait a few years. It's still my choice.

My point is simple: it is just as valid to turn the equation around and ask is it the function or is it the input that is in control of the output? The answer is of course that both are - but viewing the proposition from the viewpoint that one or the other is "in control" yields interesting insights.

Possibly. I agree that both the input and the function control the output, but I haven't seen the interesting insights one gets by hiring the meme/teme.

Is it really more useful to people if this year's colour is orange rather than mauve?

It's useful to the people who are selling orange this year. The shelf life of its utility is short. The trash compactor of time will chew up Britney Spears, Monty Python, Shakespeare, and Christianity, though perhaps not in that order. The ideas which persist will be those which continue to be useful to future generations of people.

 

[Nick227]

How?

Because how we self-identify greatly affects the decisions we make.

Storage isn't an issue. Transmission is, and it does still need a human for transmission because we have yet to build machines with their own will.

Does a machine need will to replicate?

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. I would say that if we built self-replicating machines it would be our fault because I see no reason for us to build such machines that have their own will.

OK. we're coming from slightly different angles. I don't see that the machine would require will. I mean, it's not clear for me that temes necessarily are a threat. I'm just interested in the issue.

Ideas, by themselves, have no ability to replicate. They replicate in us because we have desires/wills.

We have genetic programming. This manifests as desire and will.

Again, I say, how and what in the world does that mean? How does that differ from saying that we can deal with one idea by thinking of another?

Because if the doctor told you you were suffering a major level parasitic infection you would likely have a strong emotional reaction. If she said, say, you were creating a low-level strain for yourself through excess computer use you would likely have less of a reaction. What we identify as self matters.

Nick

 

[Dragoonster]

As are genes. I don't think you are obviating any point made by Blackmore. A gene that can help perpetuate the human race is evolutionary fit. Genes aren't conscious. They don't really care about themselves and they most certainly are not "selfish" in any conscious way. They simply benefit the organisms that they exist in thereby benefiting themselves. Memes do the same. That's all. I think you are putting more into the idea than is warranted. A gene is simply a biological packet of information. An algorithm that is capable of replicating. A meme is the digital version. If it helps for you to call it metaphor then that's fine. In the end we can trace the evolution of memes and categorize them like we can genes. We can see how they mutate and how they change the course of civilizations as they mutate. That might not be of any consequence to you but it is vitally important to anthropologists.

Anthropologists have been doing this for a long time before the word "meme" was invented. The idea (sorry, meme?) that cultures, or humans or social groups can adopt certain ideas that others have adopted isn't new. The new change to describing this as memetics actually ignores many other reasons for this that have nothing to do with idea favorability. One state conquering another and requiring the conquered to follow its ideas doesn't have much to do with natural selection of ideas (within only the context of ideas fighting each other for survival). Certain societies deciding to start raising animals for consumption may have more to do with their crops failing from flooding than it does with any "meme" of any sort, for another example. Memetics seems pretty reductionist.

A meme isn't so much a packet of digital information as it is an additional bit of information in a dictionary, imo. If Blackmore's point is that she invented a new word, then I don't disagree with her.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Because how we self-identify greatly affects the decisions we make.

I'll speak to this below

Does a machine need will to replicate?

No, but what difference does that make. They also don't have the ability to alter themselves. We have the ability to do so. We would need to give them the ability to alter themselves.

OK. we're coming from slightly different angles. I don't see that the machine would require will. I mean, it's not clear for me that temes necessarily are a threat. I'm just interested in the issue.

OK. I assumed that fear of temes "taking over" was motivation for the thread, but if that is not the issue, then that is fine. I would still maintain that this whole issue is simply a different level of discourse about the same thing that we have always spoken of -- ideas.

Because if the doctor told you you were suffering a major level parasitic infection you would likely have a strong emotional reaction. If she said, say, you were creating a low-level strain for yourself through excess computer use you would likely have less of a reaction. What we identify as self matters.

Nick

I think this is getting dangerously close to calling certain ideas viruses (so evil) while not commenting on other ideas. I know Dawkins and Dennett love to discuss the idea that religion is a virus, but so is shopping by that rubric. What is self is a bundle of ideas and biological processes -- they are all part of self.

Sure, it would be great if people would not self-identify with certain types of ideas. Bigotry could die, religious intolerance could die, sexism could die. But if we were to eradicate everything in that category there would be no self left over. We couldn't tell jokes (which are a form of group identification), talk about mutual love of music, or form societies of any type.

Those ideas that we can call memes, or something else, are part of who we are. They are what hold us together in societies.

We can't sift through and pull out the ones that someone doesn't like. There are too many of us with differing views. We'd be left bereft on the shore more than the 20th/21st century already has done to many, wrenched free from the moorings that used to anchor us to the world and provide meaning. Sure, some ideas are weeds. Some people like weeds.

 

[cyborg]

Why is orange in this year? Memetics can't tell us, it can only broadly state/repeat "because most people prefer orange this year for some reason". Actual reasons could be:

Why is there no vitamin C production in primates? Genetics can't tell us, it can only broadly state/repeat "because most primates without vitamin C production survived in previous years for some reason".

I don't see why you think the meme concept is in a vacuum away from the environment it exists in. It is no more true of genetics.

 

[Nick227]

No, but what difference does that make. They also don't have the ability to alter themselves. We have the ability to do so. We would need to give them the ability to alter themselves.

That could happen. I mean, the idea is already here!

OK. I assumed that fear of temes "taking over" was motivation for the thread, but if that is not the issue, then that is fine.

No, it is, partially. Also a general interest in the area.

I think this is getting dangerously close to calling certain ideas viruses (so evil) while not commenting on other ideas. I know Dawkins and Dennett love to discuss the idea that religion is a virus, but so is shopping by that rubric. What is self is a bundle of ideas and biological processes -- they are all part of self.

Sure, it would be great if people would not self-identify with certain types of ideas. Bigotry could die, religious intolerance could die, sexism could die. But if we were to eradicate everything in that category there would be no self left over. We couldn't tell jokes (which are a form of group identification), talk about mutual love of music, or form societies of any type.

Those ideas that we can call memes, or something else, are part of who we are. They are what hold us together in societies.

We can't sift through and pull out the ones that someone doesn't like. There are too many of us with differing views. We'd be left bereft on the shore more than the 20th/21st century already has done to many, wrenched free from the moorings that used to anchor us to the world and provide meaning. Sure, some ideas are weeds. Some people like weeds.

Ah, the old "The memes are alright!" speech. (Well, they gave us straight roads, ooh and aqueducts, oh and great plumbing!) Great meme, that one.

Nick

 

[cyborg]

I don't think they're necessarially used consciously, but (unlike our genes at present) the option for conscious control is always available.

I'll leave the discussion of consciousness for other threads but I don't see that it makes so much difference. You can only "choose" to act on what's presented to you. It's really not too hard for me to see what Susan is talking about when she sees that as being less and less under direct human control.

Okay, so if I put on a white leisure suit and "do The Hustle," I can get laid in 1980. If I don't, I may have to wait a few years. It's still my choice.

The desire for sex is not really a choice for normal adults. Choosing to engage in the mating rituals du jour becomes a choice between sex or no sex.

Possibly. I agree that both the input and the function control the output, but I haven't seen the interesting insights one gets by hiring the meme/teme.

It forces one to be less anthropic - the extent to which any one individual is really in control of how they behave certainly seems to be far more limited then we would rather prefer to think.

It's useful to the people who are selling orange this year.

The selfish meme: it is useful to orange that there are people who want to sell clothes.

The selfish gene: it is useful to genes that there are organisms that what to produce more of themselves.

The shelf life of its utility is short. The trash compactor of time will chew up Britney Spears, Monty Python, Shakespeare, and Christianity, though perhaps not in that order. The ideas which persist will be those which continue to be useful to future generations of people.

Well I'm not sure I see the utility of carrying one's wife over a threshold but people still do it.

Plenty of quite arguably useless behaviours persist. Religion is full of 'em.

And it would be good to remember that the trash compactor of time has chewed up Dinosaurs, Ammonites and Dodos - but I don't think you would argue that it wasn't useful to the genes of Dinosaurs, Ammonites and Dodos at the time that they existed even if they no longer exist.

Same as it doesn't really matter if the orange clothing meme is doomed to become extinct.