Are Memes Taking Over?

[Dragoonster]

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.

I'd like memetics to explain something that other sciences that have existed and explained similar things for centuries can't. Genetics explains the workings of DNA so evolutionary biologists can form hypotheses, and it's a new and legitimate sub-science. Ideas are unlike DNA in that they've been available for dissection for millenia, have been dissected by existing and past sciences & philosophies, and the idea that they can be dissected and/or roughly mapped is not new.

I wouldn't mind much if memetics merely served as a term form idea mapping, equivalent to linguistic mapping (funny how that doesn't warrant it's own term). But Blackmore and others seem to think it has explanatory power all unto itself. They don't seem to view memetics as a sub-science, like genetics, but rather as a giant proto-science. Hence leading to what I consider silly metaphors and meta-metaphors whose purpose seems to be giving it very broad importance. I just don't see it.

 

[Nick227]

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.

I think it is finally not so much to do with the individual ideas themselves, rather that the capacity to work with ideas became so genetically favoured in one early strain of hominid, that the brain was driven to more and more accommodate it. In so doing a second replicator, the meme, was born.

As Blackmore said, Pandora's box was opened. And, once opened, there was no way, bar species extinction, to close it again. Natural selection drove one strain of hominid to provide an environment in which a second replicator could flourish.

Nick

 

[dudalb]

"meme" is the most annoying new catchphrase since "paradigm" was in vogue, and overused.

The proof of that is a lot of people on the interent use the word "meme" without the slightest idea of what the hell it really means.

 

[Nick227]

I'd like memetics to explain something that other sciences that have existed and explained similar things for centuries can't.

In The Meme Machine, Blackmore cites the development of language and the large size of the brain as being most likely accounted for by meme-gene coevolution. She discusses other theories that account for their development around at the time (1999) as well, but considers meme theory the most likely satisfactory answer. It does seem to me significant that, songbirds aside, I think no other creature can imitate like humans. This alone would seem to me to potentially be enough to make meme theory viable, but in truth I'm not knowledgeable enough to really back up such a statement.

Nick

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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



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

But we also have the idea that to give machines independence is dangerous. That is why we delve into cautionary tales like Terminator and Matrix.

The real point I have been trying to make is that what Blackmore is doing is translating Dawkin's Selfish Gene idea to the "meme" world. She is looking at memes from a meme's perspective. It makes no sense, from that perspective, to say that memes control us. Genes don't control us, and memes don't control us. They are us. Just as Dawkins speaks of "us" as a delivery system for genes, the same can be said for memes. "We" are not separable from genes and memes. If we do separate "us" from a meme, then that meme is just no longer part of "us". It was never a separate controller.

I think it's perfectly fine to do what she is doing, but I think there is a real danger in people misunderstanding the approach -- because one of the immediate leaps made is, "Oooh, memes made me do it". Memes don't make anyone do anything. Memes (and genes) are who that person is who did whatever they did.

That memes can exist in different bodies than ours is not a new idea, so I'm not sure why we make such a big deal out of it; we've talked about software for ages now. Those bodies must have other attributes to be able to do what we do. For the present, they do not have those attributes. There are good reasons for us to ensure that they never get those attributes. We're having this discussion because people fear that machines could get those attributes, and that is what drives many Star Trek episodes -- nanobots run wild, etc.

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

The memes are back in town.

Every thought is a meme if it is repeated, but it's just part of who we are. Again, they are who we are. I don't see how we suddenly lost the awareness that we need to examine our ideas, check our references and second guess our assumptions. It seems to me that what you advocate is precisely that -- look to the ideas and see if we want to get rid of some of them. Of course. We don't need mimetics to tell us that; that is what this board is all about. Blackmore's contribution is to view this from the idea's perspective. She doesn't show that we are in danger so much as leave us with another example of how we are not the myth we tell of ourselves. We are the memes (and the genes) that make us.

As to the question of can mimetics help to explain brain development -- it's an interesting idea that requires a lot of thought. I gave the Geoffrey Miller example earlier, but I have serious reservations about his analysis. Ultimately, though, I think we are going to be left with a simple and probably stupid explanation like a change in diet that was taken advantage of by a genetic change resulting in smaller temporalis muscles. Now mimetics could have played a role after that sort of change, but it can work only in concert with genetic changes.

 

[shadron]

They [temes, in this case AI computers] 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.

No, strictly speaking they don't have the ability to alter themselves. But mutations happen - perhaps machinery malfunctions, and a more likely source - human error. And, yes - 99% of all malfunctions will have no effect (a random solder splotch on a blank area of a PC card, or an open capacitor, perhaps), and 95% of those that are functional will be lethal, but perhaps occasionally one will do something new. More likely, a PC board designer will "try something", or will send the wrong design file to production, and so on. Far fetched, you say? Are you going to try out an 'irreducibly complex" argument next?

I ran into this in the last thread arguing about AI rather than temes. "We can just pull the plug". Sure. Right now the ability to support the weight of humanity on this planet demands the use of computers - not just that, it demands that the use be continually ramped upwards, and even accelerated. At some point someone may notice that some of them are beginning to take steps on their own - that's prety much the definition of artificial intelligence, right? So - someone steps in at that point and says, "Hey - we may be getting into a future problem, here. Perhaps we'd better not make any more advances until we study it and make sure it won't get out of control." Sure - put electricity generation, flood controls, power distrbution control, Wall Street and San Jose's economic lifeblood on hold while a committee does the global warming thing on artificial intelligence.

I don't want to be alarmist here - heck, I'm not alarmed, but I do see the possibilities, and being an old fart may bring some detachment - but, if you don't even recognize the problem as a potential now, how do you expect to address it when you've finally painted yourself into a corner? Don't ever forget that machines may be intellectual dullards now, but they also compute about a billion times faster than you do. That means their learning curve will be like nothing you've ever experienced if (I'd lean towards "when") it once get started.

They [temes, in this case AI computers] also don't have the ability to alter themselves. We have the ability to do so.

Who, pray tell, gave us that ability? I presume you'd say no one did - we evolved it. And there you are.

 

[Dragoonster]

I think it is finally not so much to do with the individual ideas themselves, rather that the capacity to work with ideas became so genetically favoured in one early strain of hominid, that the brain was driven to more and more accommodate it. In so doing a second replicator, the meme, was born.

As Blackmore said, Pandora's box was opened. And, once opened, there was no way, bar species extinction, to close it again. Natural selection drove one strain of hominid to provide an environment in which a second replicator could flourish.

Nick

Thanks, to you and others. I'll have to continue to think about this. Every time I rethink it I think it's woo, but I'll continue to try to have an open mind.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, strictly speaking they don't have the ability to alter themselves. But mutations happen - perhaps machinery malfunctions, and a more likely source - human error. And, yes - 99% of all malfunctions will have no effect (a random solder splotch on a blank area of a PC card, or an open capacitor, perhaps), and 95% of those that are functional will be lethal, but perhaps occasionally one will do something new. More likely, a PC board designer will "try something", or will send the wrong design file to production, and so on. Far fetched, you say? Are you going to try out an 'irreducibly complex" argument next?

I ran into this in the last thread arguing about AI rather than temes. "We can just pull the plug". Sure. Right now the ability to support the weight of humanity on this planet demands the use of computers - not just that, it demands that the use be continually ramped upwards, and even accelerated. At some point someone may notice that some of them are beginning to take steps on their own - that's prety much the definition of artificial intelligence, right? So - someone steps in at that point and says, "Hey - we may be getting into a future problem, here. Perhaps we'd better not make any more advances until we study it and make sure it won't get out of control." Sure - put electricity generation, flood controls, power distrbution control, Wall Street and San Jose's economic lifeblood on hold while a committee does the global warming thing on artificial intelligence.

I don't want to be alarmist here - heck, I'm not alarmed, but I do see the possibilities, and being an old fart may bring some detachment - but, if you don't even recognize the problem as a potential now, how do you expect to address it when you've finally painted yourself into a corner? Don't ever forget that machines may be intellectual dullards now, but they also compute about a billion times faster than you do. That means their learning curve will be like nothing you've ever experienced if (I'd lean towards "when") it once get started.

Who said there's no potential? I said that we would have to do it by making decisions (and they would be pretty stupid deicions that might look like the right thing to do at the time); and we already have the idea that giving too much control to a "machine world" is a potential problem. Therefore, it is not inevitable that we will end up with machines controlling us.

And certainly no one is saying that machines have not evolved, that the meme world does not evolve. Both would be ludicrous arguments based on the idea that mimetics and the history of ideas is complete bunk. Have you heard me make an argument like that? What I have been arguing is that there is a danger in the way we talk about memes, in mixing the two levels of discourse -- discussion of ideas and discussion of humans who have ideas. The same thing happens in discussions of evolution -- that's how we ended up with numerous threads composed of umpteen pages discussing whether or not evolution occurred only by chance.

Who, pray tell, gave us that ability? I presume you'd say no one did - we evolved it. And there you are.

'We' didn't, nature did; but 'we' also have the knowledge that we needn't provide that to a "machine world". Nature didn't have self-reflection to work with. 'We' do. Nature didn't discuss amongst itself whether or not to give humans a dopaminergic system. We can discuss, we are doing it right now, whether or not to provide a motivational system to computers.

Just because we evolved the way we did does not mean that a meme world is going to evolve in the same way. Analogies work when they best match the potential world being described.

Memes do what they do in us because of the way we are made, and that includes motivational states and desires. Were we to program motivational states and desires into machines so that they could make their own decisions based on what they thought was right instead of doing what we do now -- immediate feedback loops based on what we want of them -- then we would be in big trouble.

But even then, us talking about not wanting to be eradicated by them would simply be part of our mythology based on our genetic inheritance that we just don't want to die. That mythology does not take into consideration what we are -- collections of genes and memes. From a memes perspective, what difference does the type of body make? Same from a gene's perspective.

 

[Nick227]

But we also have the idea that to give machines independence is dangerous. That is why we delve into cautionary tales like Terminator and Matrix.

That's true.

The real point I have been trying to make is that what Blackmore is doing is translating Dawkin's Selfish Gene idea to the "meme" world. She is looking at memes from a meme's perspective. It makes no sense, from that perspective, to say that memes control us. Genes don't control us, and memes don't control us. They are us. Just as Dawkins speaks of "us" as a delivery system for genes, the same can be said for memes. "We" are not separable from genes and memes. If we do separate "us" from a meme, then that meme is just no longer part of "us". It was never a separate controller.

I would say, finally, that if you take that position then it is so. How we choose to define ourselves is how we are in matters like this.

Personally, I see the arrival of "meme theory" as the inevitable consequence of the wider acceptance of Universal Darwinism. As we understood what replicators were, so it was inevitable that we would come to recognise memes. This gives us the opportunity for more choice. It is not "huis clos", though the belief that it is can exist and affect the organism's decision-making abilities.

I think it's perfectly fine to do what she is doing, but I think there is a real danger in people misunderstanding the approach -- because one of the immediate leaps made is, "Oooh, memes made me do it". Memes don't make anyone do anything. Memes (and genes) are who that person is who did whatever they did.

That is one valid position that can be taken but as I say it is not the only one.

That memes can exist in different bodies than ours is not a new idea, so I'm not sure why we make such a big deal out of it; we've talked about software for ages now. Those bodies must have other attributes to be able to do what we do. For the present, they do not have those attributes. There are good reasons for us to ensure that they never get those attributes. We're having this discussion because people fear that machines could get those attributes, and that is what drives many Star Trek episodes -- nanobots run wild, etc.

There can be media fear-mongering for sure. Blackmore, at the end of her talk, says to the host "I even scared myself there!", or words to that effect, with a laugh.

The memes are back in town.

I do find it very similar to the "What have the Romans ever done for us?!" sketch. There's the possibility to blame memes, then it's like "oh, well there is this, I suppose...oh and this."

Every thought is a meme if it is repeated, but it's just part of who we are. Again, they are who we are. I don't see how we suddenly lost the awareness that we need to examine our ideas, check our references and second guess our assumptions. It seems to me that what you advocate is precisely that -- look to the ideas and see if we want to get rid of some of them. Of course. We don't need mimetics to tell us that; that is what this board is all about. Blackmore's contribution is to view this from the idea's perspective. She doesn't show that we are in danger so much as leave us with another example of how we are not the myth we tell of ourselves. We are the memes (and the genes) that make us.

As to the question of can mimetics help to explain brain development -- it's an interesting idea that requires a lot of thought. I gave the Geoffrey Miller example earlier, but I have serious reservations about his analysis. Ultimately, though, I think we are going to be left with a simple and probably stupid explanation like a change in diet that was taken advantage of by a genetic change resulting in smaller temporalis muscles. Now mimetics could have played a role after that sort of change, but it can work only in concert with genetic changes.

For sure. It has to piggy back on genes. If you get the chance to read The Meme Machine, I thoroughly recommend it, btw. She goes deep into the issue of selfhood and memetics in the final 2 chapters. It's strong.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

Nick

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Personally, I see the arrival of "meme theory" as the inevitable consequence of the wider acceptance of Universal Darwinism. As we understood what replicators were, so it was inevitable that we would come to recognise memes.

OK. That is what I said above. Dawkins invented the term, and as I recall it was as an example to help show how the selfish gene worked or could be conceptualized. It was an illustration, ananalogy, that there is a gene's eye view. There is a meme's eye view too. The problem I see, to repeat, is when we mix different levels of discourse -- the sort of thing that led Mijo a while back to insist that all of evolution must be viewed as random when he really only concentrated on certain levels of description. Again, I see nothing wrong with the meme's eye view. What I fear is confusion of the the meme's eye view and the view from the organism as a whole.

This gives us the opportunity for more choice. It is not "huis clos", though the belief that it is can exist and affect the organism's decision-making abilities.

This is where we part company. We already had that choice. We already knew that we had competing ideas and that we could pick and choose amongst them.

There can be media fear-mongering for sure. Blackmore, at the end of her talk, says to the host "I even scared myself there!", or words to that effect, with a laugh.

Right, and what I'm saying is that we need to keep that in mind. The view that technology will overwhelm us is, I think, overblown. Sure, there's a possibility, but it is not inevitable. I don't think any of us know enough about the fitness lanscape of the "memome" to say what will happen. The fear-mongering results from over-reliance on one type of meme to the exclusion of all the others. What I'm largely trying to say in this sort of response is "remember all those other memes and remember our inherent sense of self-preservation". If other types of memes didn't exist we couldn't have this conversation in the first place.

And, yes, I fear the press getting ahold of this sort of dialogue and doing to it what they do to genetics -- "Oooh, look, we have the gene for gambling now", or "Oooh, look, Terminator is really gonna happen scientists say". They work off the meme of "let's sell a type of information that people will go for" and don't care about measured, subtle interactions amongst information sources.

I do find it very similar to the "What have the Romans ever done for us?!" sketch. There's the possibility to blame memes, then it's like "oh, well there is this, I suppose...oh and this."

Humor aside, the analogy doesn't work because the Romans were doing things for and to a separate group. When you consider the "memome", we are not a separate group for them to do things for and to us. They are what makes us. We are biology tied to ideas.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

Nick

Likewise. I think it is very interesting.

 

[Nick227]

OK. That is what I said above. Dawkins invented the term, and as I recall it was as an example to help show how the selfish gene worked or could be conceptualized. It was an illustration, ananalogy, that there is a gene's eye view. There is a meme's eye view too. The problem I see, to repeat, is when we mix different levels of discourse -- the sort of thing that led Mijo a while back to insist that all of evolution must be viewed as random when he really only concentrated on certain levels of description. Again, I see nothing wrong with the meme's eye view. What I fear is confusion of the the meme's eye view and the view from the organism as a whole.

Yes, you have to be careful. The human brain is hard-wired to potentially consider things like this as "threats," and so all sorts of responses can be easily triggered. That said, the meme's eye view might be a means to get mathematical information.

This is where we part company. We already had that choice. We already knew that we had competing ideas and that we could pick and choose amongst them.

Ooh, you are a hard-line determinist!

And, yes, I fear the press getting ahold of this sort of dialogue and doing to it what they do to genetics -- "Oooh, look, we have the gene for gambling now", or "Oooh, look, Terminator is really gonna happen scientists say". They work off the meme of "let's sell a type of information that people will go for" and don't care about measured, subtle interactions amongst information sources.

given the massive role the media have in meme propogation it could create some interesting dynamics also, were they to propose memes as a threat.

Humor aside, the analogy doesn't work because the Romans were doing things for and to a separate group. When you consider the "memome", we are not a separate group for them to do things for and to us. They are what makes us. We are biology tied to ideas.

Well, it's not a perfect analogy. If I recall the People's Front of Judaea (or was it the JPF) considered themselves as locals, and the Romans not. But they could have considered the Romans equally as locals had they wished. So the Romans were perceived as outsiders, but arguably useful outsiders. It's not a perfect analogy but it shows a little how group dynamics can work with things like memes.

eta: I mean, "memes r' us" is true in the sense that Blackmore's "selfplex" is essentially memetic. But (1) not everyone who believes in memes goes as far as Blackmore, in fact I think most don't (afaik Dawkins and Dennett don't); and (2) even if the selfplex exists and is memetic it does not mean that the overwhelming majority of memes "are us."

Nick

 

[quarky]

John Lilly wrote some bizarre stuff during his drug-induced stupors. Perhaps it has been mentioned. Anyway, the 'silicon-based-life forms' were using us to create the proper niche for their needs. In that sense, the meme is akin to the gene of said 'life-forms'.

From his perspective on this, all is moving along nicely in their endeavor.

Another possibility along these sci-fi lines is that we are being used to synthesize certain molecules (probably in search of better illegal drug highs) that will eventually become the building blocks of the invading life forms.

 

[Nick227]

John Lilly wrote some bizarre stuff during his drug-induced stupors. Perhaps it has been mentioned. Anyway, the 'silicon-based-life forms' were using us to create the proper niche for their needs. In that sense, the meme is akin to the gene of said 'life-forms'.

From his perspective on this, all is moving along nicely in their endeavor.

Another possibility along these sci-fi lines is that we are being used to synthesize certain molecules (probably in search of better illegal drug highs) that will eventually become the building blocks of the invading life forms.

Yes, ketamine can give one interesting viewpoints (er, I imagine). However, both of these perspectives are teleological and thus pretty lacking, imo.

Nick

 

[Dragoonster]

For sure. It has to piggy back on genes.

Literally? I've been confused by all memetics, but you're saying memes are actual physical things that are in DNA? If so, I don't see how they differ from any other trait, such as setting up a good hands-brain connection helps species with opposable thumbs.

Hypothetical--a 1-week old baby is dropped off in the woods and gets adopted by wolves. He lives for 40 years with the wolves, never seeing any trace of humanity. Which human memes would he have used with the wolves?

Let's say a ninja finds him, drugs him, and steals some sperm when he's 39, then impregnates another female human who was also dropped off as a baby. Which memes will be replicated to their child--wolf memes or human memes?

Also, what DNA will be replicated--human or wolf?

 

[quarky]

I totally want to meet that guy.

 

[cyborg]

Literally? I've been confused by all memetics, but you're saying memes are actual physical things that are in DNA?

That would be absurd.

Memes piggy-backs on genes the same way that software piggy-backs on hardware in that without the right hardware the software is inconsequential.

 

[Dragoonster]

That would be absurd.

Memes piggy-backs on genes the same way that software piggy-backs on hardware in that without the right hardware the software is inconsequential.

So are memes the word to describe emergent traits, like tree-climbing or swimming, which may or may not have a survival advantage? Is that right?

 

[NewtonTrino]

Not necessarily emergent traits, but a superset of that.

 

[Nick227]

Literally? I've been confused by all memetics, but you're saying memes are actual physical things that are in DNA? If so, I don't see how they differ from any other trait, such as setting up a good hands-brain connection helps species with opposable thumbs.

Not literally! The idea behind meme theory, as I understand it, is that for early humans the capacity to work with ideas became evolutionarily favoured to the point where we created the mental environment where a second replicator could thrive.

The piggy-backing is not literal, but rather in the fact that the early memes that came into existence promised to fulfil the organism's biological needs - new tools for hunting or eating, making oneself more attractive to the opposite sex, and so on. Being able to copy ideas became so biologically useful that evolution drove our ancestors to create an environment (the human brain) where memes could exist and replicate. From this point onwards there were two replicators, genes and memes. What Blackmore is pointing people towards examining is the reality that memes no longer need a human brain in order to exist and thrive. Quite what this could mean needs to be evaluated but it could be an issue for human survival.

Nick

 

[biomorph]

Literally? I've been confused by all memetics, but you're saying memes are actual physical things that are in DNA?

Nope, not at all. The DNA produces the physical organism that has the capacity (used for other beneficial stuff) to be infected/inhabited by memes, some of which are beneficial in some circumstances, some which are not beneficial.

Hypothetical--a 1-week old baby is dropped off in the woods and gets adopted by wolves. He lives for 40 years with the wolves, never seeing any trace of humanity. Which human memes would he have used with the wolves?

None. However learning from experience would produce memes.

Let's say a ninja finds him, drugs him, and steals some sperm when he's 39, then impregnates another female human who was also dropped off as a baby. Which memes will be replicated to their child--wolf memes or human memes?

The ninja's.......

Memes are not transferable by the actual biological mechanism, the memes infect/inhabit existing structures...

Also, what DNA will be replicated--human or wolf?

Wheres the wolf DNA? nowhere...............