Are Memes Taking Over?

[RandFan]

Stretching the metaphor to suggest that humanity may just be a transitional species in danger of being subjugated by our new teme overlords is the kind of idea that only deserves to be seriously discussed by freshmen at 3 AM in the fanciful philosophy dorm. I can't believe that woman got invited to TED.

I agree with much of what you said, to a degree, but I would like to take a moment and defend Blackmore. She is a very serious researcher who is highly regarded in her field by folks like Dennett, Dawkins and Pinker. I'll go back and listen to what she said but I'm not sure you characterize what she has said very well.

I think it fair to question how much controlling is going on by memes and temes. Take my anecdotal experience for example. Why did I go on a mission? Was it because of memes or was it because some leaders of a church used the memes and I was doing their bidding?

That said, if we accept your premise that only conscious entities can control anything then I think we can safely toss out the Selfish Gene and the idea of gene selection. Of course, the fact that Dawkins speaks of genes in an anthropomorphic way doesn't mean that his intention is to convey the idea that genes are conscious. And to be sure he goes out of his way to make painfully certain that it isn't his intention. Same with Blackmore IIRC.

 

[Nick227]

My current working theory, and I have no idea if it matches this "memosphere", is the memes are an idea, to be sure, but ideas serve the purpose of getting the real, biological organisms to behave in particular ways. Hence they can be more akin to a parasite than a symbiote. More akin to a virus than a real life form, which is why the organism analogy may be stretched beyond its breaking point at this point.

They are what they are, which is to say, ideas designed to get people to behave in such and such a way.

I basically agree, though for me it then becomes a question of considering just what it is that humans are supposed to do with their time. Now that there is an adequate food supply, no particular threats around, enough sex, and the interpersonal grooming has been done, just what are we to do with this big brain that memes have developed to breed in?

Nick

 

[RandFan]

Whether iPods are created for the benefit of music's replication, or for the benefit of humans to just listen to music, depends on your frame of reference.

"How clever of wild sheep to have acquired that most versatile adaption, the shepherd." --Dennett

Hint: Dennett doesn't really believe it has anything to do with the cleverness of sheep but don't let that keep you from missing his point (not directed at you Wowbagger).

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yes, genes and memes are what make up humans, what create and define humans. There is meme-gene co-operation and there is meme-gene antagonism. This is one story. However, a certain branch of memes, temes, have the possibility to create their own hosting arrangements. They don't necessarily require humans to provide an environment for them to be stored in and to replicate. Their governing algorithm can drive them in another direction, away from needing these flesh and blood hosts, us, and on to developing their own environment in which to breed and flourish.

The question I see Blackmore wanting to be investigated is whether, mathematically, they could do this to the exclusion of human beings, whether the end result of the teme algorithm could be no more humans.

It is not that there exists some "techno teme God" somewhere, seeking to take over or obliterate humans. It is rather that the mathematical possibilities here require investigation. I imagine she hopes that presenting the issue in this manner might encourage this to happen.

Nick

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). 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. 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?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I wonder if it makes sense to develop a Relativity-like theory for meme and temes:

Whether iPods are created for the benefit of music's replication, or for the benefit of humans to just listen to music, depends on your frame of reference.

If we're going to talk about this issue in a meaningful way I think we must.

 

[bokonon]

Can you explain exactly why you find the idea ridiculous?

Because you're personifying something that is nothing but a metaphor.

Memes, through meme-gene co-operation appear to have driven the development of the human brain, over the last 2 million years or so, to create an ideal environment for their propogation.

No. Genes which generated better brains allowed people to perceive and implement choices which gave them a survival advantage. The ability to share ideas between people, and to preserve ideas for future generations, multiplied the survival advantage.

"Ideal environment for their propagation"? Maybe, maybe not. I have lots of ideas and pictures which I saved on 5.25" floppies, that are simply dead now. In most cases, the media is no longer readable even if I had the hardware required to read it, which I don't. Yeah, they got multiplied, but in the end it was just a waste of energy.

In some ways, we've moved beyond "the ideal environment". When there were three networks broadcasting TV, the ideas which could access that channel were propagated very well. Now, even good ideas are fighting so much "noise" that it's difficult for them to become widespread. To employ the meme metaphor, they still get 15 minutes of fame, but it's confined to a single petri dish.

We have brains that are very large, use a vast amount of valuable energy, and which create constant problems in childbirth. This is not likely to be the result of purely genetic selection. It is much more likely meme-gene co-operation.

This is ridiculous. Ideas don't even communicate with genes, much less cooperate with genes. Medical ideas have helped to overcome many of the problems ("big heads" being only one) associated with childbirth, which has improved survival for people born in societies where those ideas are known and implemented.

Thus, it can already be said that memes have driven much of the later part of human evolutionary development. Who is to say that the algorithm that has caused this will not also lead to the human host being dumped somewhere along the way?

Evolutionary development? No. Cultural development, perhaps.

And I'm to say the human host will not be dumped. Ideas are lifeless and sterile without people to nurture and develop them. There is no "algorithm," there is only the question, "is this useful for human beings?" Useful ideas will enjoy long-term survival, others will not.

 

[Nick227]

No. Genes which generated better brains allowed people to perceive and implement choices which gave them a survival advantage. The ability to share ideas between people, and to preserve ideas for future generations, multiplied the survival advantage.

"Ideal environment for their propagation"? Maybe, maybe not. I have lots of ideas and pictures which I saved on 5.25" floppies, that are simply dead now. In most cases, the media is no longer readable even if I had the hardware required to read it, which I don't. Yeah, they got multiplied, but in the end it was just a waste of energy.

In some ways, we've moved beyond "the ideal environment". When there were three networks broadcasting TV, the ideas which could access that channel were propagated very well. Now, even good ideas are fighting so much "noise" that it's difficult for them to become widespread. To employ the meme metaphor, they still get 15 minutes of fame, but it's confined to a single petri dish.


This is ridiculous. Ideas don't even communicate with genes, much less cooperate with genes. Medical ideas have helped to overcome many of the problems ("big heads" being only one) associated with childbirth, which has improved survival for people born in societies where those ideas are known and implemented.


Evolutionary development? No. Cultural development, perhaps.

And I'm to say the human host will not be dumped. Ideas are lifeless and sterile without people to nurture and develop them. There is no "algorithm," there is only the question, "is this useful for human beings?" Useful ideas will enjoy long-term survival, others will not.

So, essentially, you dispute that memes may be considered replicators?

Nick

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

This is ridiculous. Ideas don't even communicate with genes, much less cooperate with genes. Medical ideas have helped to overcome many of the problems ("big heads" being only one) associated with childbirth, which has improved survival for people born in societies where those ideas are known and implemented.

Think sexual selection.

 

[bokonon]

That said, if we accept your premise that only conscious entities can control anything then I think we can safely toss out the Selfish Gene and the idea of gene selection. Of course, the fact that Dawkins speaks of genes in an anthropomorphic way doesn't mean that his intention is to convey the idea that genes are conscious. And to be sure he goes out of his way to make painfully certain that it isn't his intention. Same with Blackmore IIRC.

As with many topics on JREF, I'd never heard of her before I followed a link in a JREF thread. I watched her TED talk, and she didn't seem to be going out of her way to distance herself from anthropomorphic memes. Indeed, she seemed to be suggesting that the Terminator might already be moving among us.

I wouldn't argue that only conscious entities can control anything (gravity is exercising a good deal of control most of the time), but I'd definitely argue that human beings are in control of the ideas they generate, modify, and disseminate. I don't know that I'm capable of seriously considering that the ideas themselves might be puppetmasters pulling our strings.

We don't consciously control our genes. We can be infected by viruses, which we also do not control. We can't consciously choose which viruses we inhale. We CAN consciously choose the ideas to which we'll devote time and energy.

Prop 8 doesn't care if it passes. Prop 8 is not "self-aware". "Intelligent Design" doesn't care if you believe it. Ideas are tools which people use. Pretending they're something else is (to me) like pretending that a family of bears can complain to each other about someone eating their porridge. It's a cute way to tell a story or illustrate a point, but it's not an asteroid hurtling toward our future.

 

[bokonon]

So, essentially, you dispute that memes may be considered replicators?

Nick

I don't know what you mean by that.

 

[bokonon]

Think sexual selection.

I don't know what you're hinting at either. Sexual selection can mean bang anything that moves and don't leave a forwarding address or have a small number of children that you can afford to educate at the finest schools with a desirable lifemate who shares your values.

 

[cyborg]

We CAN consciously choose the ideas to which we'll devote time and energy.

You can only consciously "choose" ideas that are presented to you.

I can't choose to decide whether some burger franchise I've never heard of is worth more of my time and energy that MacDonalds.

That's part of the later proposition in the argument: there are a lot of machines out there filtering what sort of information we're more likely to get to see via the Internet.

You're never going to visit every webpage so what google chooses to deliver to you is going to affect what ideas you "choose" to devote your time and energy to.

But then thinking you're controlling that information because you're the one clicking "Search" is so much more natural.

 

[cyborg]

Prop 8 doesn't care if it passes. Prop 8 is not "self-aware". "Intelligent Design" doesn't care if you believe it. Ideas are tools which people use.

The gene for Vitamin C production doesn't care if it works. It is not "self-aware". It does not care if you believe it.

Are genes tools which people use?

 

[bokonon]

You can only consciously "choose" ideas that are presented to you.

I agree, but I think I'm missing your point too.

Most people probably don't want to devote a lot of time to picking a burger place. If the place they ate last week was satisfactory, they'll probably return this week. If someone whose opinion they respect says "You HAVE to try this place," they'll probably give it a shot.

If someone in a JREF thread says I should watch Blackmore's TED talk, I might check it out.

At this point, I've tentatively concluded that this memeteme idea is neither new nor noteworthy, but I'm still willing to consider that it might be. Hell, I'm still willing to consider ID, if only for the exercise.

None of that suggests I'm not controlling my life, or that I'm a mere twig tossed by the TEME tsunami.

 

[RandFan]

I wouldn't argue that only conscious entities can control anything (gravity is exercising a good deal of control most of the time), but I'd definitely argue that human beings are in control of the ideas they generate, modify, and disseminate. I don't know that I'm capable of seriously considering that the ideas themselves might be puppetmasters pulling our strings.

Why not? Ideas are just variables. Why did the 9/11 perpetrators commit suicide and kill a bunch of people? Wasn't it because of an idea?

We don't consciously control our genes. We can be infected by viruses, which we also do not control. We can't consciously choose which viruses we inhale. We CAN consciously choose the ideas to which we'll devote time and energy.

Oddly enough people are far more likely to choose the religion of their parents. I'm not sure what the ability to consciously choose ideas has to do with anything. What are the variables we use to choose? More ideas? Why do advertisers use scantily clad women to sell beer? Is it because we are free from the manipulation of memes? Really? Why would anyone convert to Mormonism?

Prop 8 doesn't care if it passes. Prop 8 is not "self-aware". "Intelligent Design" doesn't care if you believe it. Ideas are tools which people use. Pretending they're something else is (to me) like pretending that a family of bears can complain to each other about someone eating their porridge. It's a cute way to tell a story or illustrate a point, but it's not an asteroid hurtling toward our future.

Yet people are manipulated by ideas and some ideas are more fit than others. Many people will kill other people and themselves for ideas.

Mormonism is a really bad and obvious fraud. Yet I sincerely believed it and defended it. I gave up all the material possessions I had and left my home at 19 and went on a two year mission and propagated Joseph Smith's ideas.

It's not just a cute story. If it was I wouldn't have gone on a mission.

BTW, have you heard of Dennett's comparison of the Lancet Fluke to religion? Memes ARE like viruses whether we choose them or not.

 

[Nick227]

I don't know what you mean by that.

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

"Memetic driving works like this. Once imitation arose three new processes could begin. First, memetic selection (that is, the survival of some memes at the expense of others). Second, genetic selection for the ability to imitate the new memes (the best imitators of the best imitators have the highest reproductive success). Third, genetic selection for mating with the best imitators." - The Meme Machine, p116

Nick

 

[bokonon]

The gene for Vitamin C production doesn't care if it works. It is not "self-aware". It does not care if you believe it.

Are genes tools which people use?

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) that makes it more self-sufficient. The gene (tool) will confer a survival advantage in environments where vitamin C is scarce.

Organisms which require vitamin C but lack such a tool will need to find an external source of vitamin C. In an environment where vitamin C sources are plentiful, finding it may be a better strategy than making it. Where external vitamin C is scarce, or supplies are intermittent and unreliable, it's probably a disadvantage relative to an organism that can make its own.

An organism that could choose whether to use "found" vitamin C or to make its own would have the best chance of surviving in any environment.

As individuals and as societies, we choose the ideas we consider useful. Sometimes we choose wisely, sometimes we don't. In no instance is the idea itself in control of the process.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't know what you're hinting at either. Sexual selection can mean bang anything that moves and don't leave a forwarding address or have a small number of children that you can afford to educate at the finest schools with a desirable lifemate who shares your values.

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.

Geoffrey Miller has proposed, and I don't really agree with him, that the increase in human brain size may have resulted from a similar process -- sort of runaway evolutionary changes toward bigger brain sizes because females selected males who could think and be artistic. One of the problems I have with the idea when it comes to humans is that generally with sexual selection there is marked dimorphism between the sexes, but we do not see that with intelligence or brain size. I think Miller's argument is weak as a full explanation for our intelligence, but it is an intriguing idea.

It is possible that some selection, especially sexual selection (this would be by females, since males do want to bang anything that walks), which would be based on ideas/desires, played some role in our development; but that is pure speculation.

 

[Wowbagger]

"How clever of wild sheep to have acquired that most versatile adaption, the shepherd." --Dennett

I think that qualifies as one of my favorite Daniel Dennett quotes.

 

[bokonon]

Ideas are just variables. Why did the 9/11 perpetrators commit suicide and kill a bunch of people? Wasn't it because of an idea?

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

Oddly enough people are far more likely to choose the religion of their parents.

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.

Yet people are manipulated by ideas and some ideas are more fit than others.

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

BTW, have you heard of Dennett's comparison of the Lancet Fluke to religion? Memes ARE like viruses whether we choose them or not.

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 may be useful to discuss ideas using the viral metaphor, but to me it's still a metaphor.