Are Memes Taking Over?

[Nick227]

I read an interview with Susan Blackmore (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/02/ted_blackmore?currentPage=all) on the subject of memetics, which took place during this year's TED Conference, and wondered what forum members thought of it.

Nick


Wired: You refer to memes as an organism and talk about them as things we have no control over. Are we completely powerless against them?

Blackmore: Some of them we can control. But as more and more stuff comes our way, our control becomes less and less. You can in the early stages of a new meme drag it back and stop it. If you know that only two or three other people know something you can stop them from spreading it. Or if a book has been written, you can burn the paper that it's written on. But once a meme has been let loose in the population, you can't take it back.

What culture is doing, what the memesphere is doing, is taking a human being and infecting it with masses of new information and exploiting its tendencies. We are being turned from ordinary old-fashioned meme machines into what I call "teme" machines -- machines for copying technological information, spreading photos and printed words and digital files.

We can choose to turn our computer off if we want to (stop from absorbing and spreading some memes). But we as a species are not in control of the internet. We are not in control of the growth of new media. And we are getting less and less able to control what goes on out there.

What I believe is happening now is that true teme machines are arriving -- that is, machines that copy and produce variations and then select. That's what you need for an evolutionary process; that's natural selection.

Up until very recently in the world of memes, humans did all the varying and selecting. We had machines that copied -- photocopiers, printing presses -- but only very recently do we have artificial machines that also produce the variations, for example (software that) mixes up ideas and produces an essay or neural networks that produce new music and do the selecting. There are machines that will choose which music you listen to. It's all shifting that way because evolution by natural selection is inevitable. There's a shift to the machines doing all of that.

We're not there yet. But once we're there, there's going to be evolution of memes out there that is totally out of our control.

Wired: What will that look like?

Blackmore: Well, it will look like humans are just a minor thing on this planet with masses (of) silicon-based machinery using us to drag stuff out of the ground to build more machines.

We are so ego-centric. We think of ourselves as the center of the universe. We need to do a flip and see us as a player in a vast evolutionary process, which we're not in control of.

Wired: Why is the area of meme study controversial?

Blackmore: I can think of three reasons. One, people misunderstand it. They think memes are the same as ideas.

Two, they are frightened of it. Memetics appears to have a lot of implications that we humans are machines, which people have never liked. Of course we're machines, we're biological machines. But people don't like that. Free will and consciousness is an illusion, and the self is a complex of memes. People don't like that. My view is that if these things are true it doesn't matter if we like them or not.

The third possible reason is maybe it's a load of garbage. But we'll find that out if we do the science and make testable predictions and compare memetics with other theories about culture; we'll find out whether it's true.

Wired: Why is it important to study memes? What can we learn from the phenomenon?

Blackmore: We understand human evolution in a completely different way. We need to see what's going on in the world. The world is being taken over by the technological memes, and if we don't understand what's happening we are not going to be able to cope with it.

The stress on a human brain, the way our kids' brains are torn in 10 bits at once doing multitasking, the pressures to take drugs to stay awake so you can process more memes all day ... The stresses on the human brain are huge and we need to understand why and how.

[paximperium]

Uh...memes are ideas. They've been with human kind since we started communicating with each other.

[volatile]

Your questioning title is exactly the type of misunderstanding Blackmore talks about. "Memes" cannot take over, as Pax hints at, because they are simply extant packets of cultural information. The question as you pose it nonsensical and meaningless.

Particular memes may (will) become more dominant and widespread over time, however.

[Nick227]

Your questioning title is exactly the type of misunderstanding Blackmore talks about. "Memes" cannot take over, as Pax hints at, because they are simply extant packets of cultural information. The question as you pose it nonsensical and meaningless.

Particular memes may (will) become more dominant and widespread over time, however.

Well, Blackmore asserts that the self (self-image or narrative self) is memetic in nature. Thus, given that the organism also has a biological self, a body with needs, one can state that memes could take over the body or the brain. They would need to pay lip service to biological needs, but that's it, as I see it.

In considering the planet, one might say that memes are driving humans to dig up more and more of its resources and use more and more of its power to create and drive more and more electronic devices with which they can replicate. This is not to ascribe intention to memes, just to point out that this is how the algorithm could run.

Nick

[rocketdodger]

Well, Blackmore asserts that the self (self-image or narrative self) is memetic in nature. Thus, given that the organism also has a biological self, a body with needs, one can state that memes could take over the body or the brain. They would need to pay lip service to biological needs, but that's it, as I see it.

Despite our arguments in other threads, I do agree with you.

Such a thing is particularly noticeable in todays environment of religious extremism. The thinking of a suicide bomber is the archetype of a meme that has completely taken over the body and the brain.

In considering the planet, one might say that memes are driving humans to dig up more and more of its resources and use more and more of its power to create and drive more and more electronic devices with which they can replicate. This is not to ascribe intention to memes, just to point out that this is how the algorithm could run.

Yep.

I was actually going to write a book about the dominance-seeking meme in social mammals -- particularly humans -- and call it "The Order." I did alot of thinking about that meme when I was in the military where it flourishes, and was startled at the similarities I saw in religion, sports, and most other social hierarchies. I was even more startled when I realized that a good chunk of the consumer market is driven by that meme!

It is pretty scary to think that we are unwittingly the substrate for another level of natural selection.

But then, even if we opposed it, that would be a meme as well! There is another level of self-reference for you to ponder, Nick -- the substrate of an evolutionary process realizing it is the substrate of an evolutionary process, the realization of which is also an evolutionary process, etc.

[Nick227]

Uh...memes are ideas. They've been with human kind since we started communicating with each other.

Sure, maybe it's ideas that have driven the evolutionary development of the human brain. Once we could imitate so ideas could behave as replicators same as genes. The capacity to imitate would have been greatly genetically favoured, so humans have developed to become excellent devices for acquiring, storing and transmitting ideas. Selfhood itself is very largely just an idea.

At some point I think one does have to consider where it's all going.

Nick

[Nick227]

Despite our arguments in other threads, I do agree with you.

Thanks.

It is pretty scary to think that we are unwittingly the substrate for another level of natural selection.

But then, even if we opposed it, that would be a meme as well! There is another level of self-reference for you to ponder, Nick -- the substrate of an evolutionary process realizing it is the substrate of an evolutionary process, the realization of which is also an evolutionary process, etc.

Is the realisation of this also part of an evolutionary process, though? That sounds a bit towards teleology, though I could be wrong.

Anyway, Blackmore (in The Meme Machine), essentially considers that developing more awareness in the moment is the only way out. (Note I hesitate to use the word "meditation" on this forum!)

Nick

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nick, you don't seem to understand what a meme is. The term was coined to describe the means of passing on social and culture basics in a population. Genes pass on biological aspects of a person, but memes pass on sociocultural aspects. We are a product of both.

[Nick227]

Nick, you don't seem to understand what a meme is. The term was coined to describe the means of passing on social and culture basics in a population. Genes pass on biological aspects of a person, but memes pass on sociocultural aspects. We are a product of both.

Memes can also drive biological evolution. Meme theory provides one of the most prominent means to explain the development of the brain over the last million years or two.

A meme can be considered a replicator in its own right, driving evolution through co-adaptive strategies with genes. Memetic and genetic evolution are not necessarily in harmony.

Thus, your strapline is not necessarily correct...prayer rituals do have the potential to change the universe if their replication can drive biological development. The ability to create opinions likewise.

Nick

[Wowbagger]

Well, I for one welcome our new memetic overlords!


But, seriously, memes are just another form of replication with Darwin-like selection that has been recognized.

I started my own thread about them, almost two years ago: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70215

Here is an excerpt from one of my posts you may find interesting:

For scientific purposes, Replicators can be called such, if they exhibit the following properties very well:

Longevity: The longevity of a single copy is not as important as the longevity of any copy of that "information". A single instance of a gene may die, but it has the ability to live on, as new copies in offspring. A single instance of a meme may "die" (if a specific person dies, or merely forgets the idea), but the idea it conveys has some ability to live on, as new copies in other people.

Fecundity: The ability to reproduce. Some specific items may reproduce more effectively than others, because they are subject to selection pressures. Genes that are more successful in passing themselves on, have higher fecundity. This usually means they are beneficial to the overall survival of the host, but not always.
Memes have the ability to reproduce, by getting "absorbed" into people's minds. (Humans are particularly susceptible to these replicators, because of our pliable brain structure.) Some are more successful than others, and, like genes, this success is not always to the overall benefit of the host. They copy well, because they copy well.

Copy-Fidelity: The ability to be copied with minimal, if any, errors. Genes clearly have an advantage, here, because they are reliant on a physical structure. Memes are more prone to errors, because they have no physical presence. Memes "sacrifice" physical presence for more efficient fecundity. But, even so, it is possible that the evolution of social ideas can be tracked, and broken down into individual memes.


When someone says memes are analogous to genes, they mean both can be demonstrated to exhibit these properties. Clearly, though, there are differences in their environment and how they replicate.

[Nick227]

Well, I for one welcome our new memetic overlords!

I see they've got to you already! But it's not too late, meditate now!

Thanks for the link and info.

eta: with regard to fidelity, I would have thought that language, whilst not perfect, represents a pretty good digitised means for storage and replication of memes.

Nick

[NewtonTrino]

Language itself is obviously a meme. I can easily see it being possible that our large brains were driving by memes selecting our genetics for us. I think Susan Blackmore is 100% right on with her thinking.

[shadron]

Do this, people. Stretch your minds about memes a little and go listen to Blackmore's talk about mems and temes at the TED conference: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html. She discusses how memes, which are only ideas, caused a crisis in human evolution by just being, and how temes (technological memes) are going to cause a crisis in the near future through self-evolution of AI. There are many thinking people (Bill Joy, Chief Scientist at Sun, for example) who do believe that that will happen; I've been in two threads about it here. So give her a listen; it's worth it, then argue about whether there is a problem or not.

Be aware that she writes and investigates parapsychology mainly for CSICOP (or whatever it is now). She got a degree in parapsychology and spent 20 years do parapsychological investigations before deciding it was a crock. Besides, anyone with five different hair colors (http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/) can't be all bad.

[Nick227]

I was actually going to write a book about the dominance-seeking meme in social mammals -- particularly humans -- and call it "The Order." I did alot of thinking about that meme when I was in the military where it flourishes, and was startled at the similarities I saw in religion, sports, and most other social hierarchies. I was even more startled when I realized that a good chunk of the consumer market is driven by that meme!

I share your concerns but it seems to me that patterns of dominant and submissive behaviour are more naturally genetic in nature. For sure there are plenty of memes associated with them but it seems to me an inevitable consequence of evolution that dominant traits emerge.

Nick

[Agular]

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

[bokonon]

Wired: Why is the area of meme study controversial?

Blackmore: I can think of three reasons. One, people misunderstand it. They think memes are the same as ideas.

Two, they are frightened of it. Memetics appears to have a lot of implications that we humans are machines, which people have never liked. Of course we're machines, we're biological machines. But people don't like that. Free will and consciousness is an illusion, and the self is a complex of memes. People don't like that. My view is that if these things are true it doesn't matter if we like them or not.

The third possible reason is maybe it's a load of garbage. But we'll find that out if we do the science and make testable predictions and compare memetics with other theories about culture; we'll find out whether it's true.
It's a load of garbage. Memes are ideas, "memesphere" (GMAFB) is "culture" and giving them a new buzzword doesn't change that.

Are ideas taking over? No. Some ideas help people live more satisfied or more fulfilling lives, and such ideas become more popular.

Some ideas find pockets of culture in which they thrive. Some don't.

The idea that human bodies are being "infected" with masses of new information is nonsense. I wish I could infect myself with new information. In fact, long-term acquisition of new information requires focused study, and even then, most of the ideas I'm exposed to are ephemeral.

[Wowbagger]

with regard to fidelity, I would have thought that language, whilst not perfect, represents a pretty good digitised means for storage and replication of memes.Yeah, but it's not quite as quality-controlling as an actual physical structure.

And, not all memes involve language. Paper folding (origami), for example, can also be a meme.

"meme" is the most annoying new catchphrase since "paradigm" was in vogue, and overused. Yeah, I agree the word is overused. (Damn that Dawkins for making the "meme" meme so darn catchy!) But, that doesn't mean there can't be a serious discussion within its proper usage. There are still implications about replicating cultural units we could continue talking about.

[shadron]

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

Personally I don't like "catchphrase" and vogue. Overused! :)

[cyborg]

It's a load of garbage. Memes are ideas, "memesphere" (GMAFB) is "culture" and giving them a new buzzword doesn't change that.

Watch the talk: it very specifically says that memes are not about ideas - they are about mimicry.

Are ideas taking over? No. Some ideas help people live more satisfied or more fulfilling lives, and such ideas become more popular.

Some ideas find pockets of culture in which they thrive. Some don't.

Right - can't take over if you're already "in control".

[cyborg]

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

Just as well you're not involved in its use then.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Personally I don't like "catchphrase" and vogue. Overused! :)


Not quite as bad as "personally", though.:)

[RandFan]

Not quite as bad as "personally", though.:)On the other hand only slightly better than "though".

[Ichneumonwasp]

On the other hand only slightly better than "though".


You know "slightly" really pisses me off.

Hey is this mimetics in action, or what?

[RandFan]

I like the concept of meme's. It's an effective means to understand information and the ability of information to persist. The Bible is an evolutionary fit set of memes. It will outlast all of us. When we understand what memes are we can understand why the Bible has survived for thousands of years and is the most printed book in history and the knowledge in it held by more people than any other.

As to the OP and the question, it's a good one. As a Mormon I gave much of my time and resources in furtherance of Mormon and Christian memes. Will memes take over? To the extent that they can they already have.

[RandFan]

You know "slightly" really pisses me off.

Hey is this mimetics in action, or what?"Pisses"? Vulgar and pedestrian.

And yes. :)

[Ichneumonwasp]

What do we do with repeated meme that we are able to talk about memes and change the way they affect us since we know that we are the ones replicating them?:boggled:

[bokonon]

Watch the talk: it very specifically says that memes are not about ideas - they are about mimicry.
Okay, that was a waste of 20 minutes.

Personifying ideas is just as silly as personifying genes. Slathering a dollop of doom and gloom on top of a silly personified idea is doubly silly.

The things being imitated are ideas. In the long run, the ones that survive are the ones that are useful. In the short run, "entertaining," "amusing," "unique," etc. can have a good run, but they're destined to dead end. "Using language" and "using fire" are older than the holy books. If we don't slide into another dark age, in a thousand years, the Bible and the Quran will be in the bargain bin with "The Odyssey". Science and technology are simply more useful.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Just saw/heard the talk.

Seems to me that she mixes two levels of description. If "we" are going to speak about these ideas that replicate independently of "us", which they cannot do except in devices that we make, then who is this "us" that she was discussing?

Why discuss ideas at this level as acting in determined ways, but still speak of humans on a gross level where free will makes sense to discuss? It is either the case that we decide everything, or that the things we call "us" are conduits through which material and ideas pass and act in either determined or undetermined ways. To mix the level at which we speak of humans and the level at which we could speak of ideas is confused. It is similar to the confusion that arises when discussing evolution at the level of general allele change over time and individual animals trying to survive difficult environments and pretending that they can be described using the same language.

[Nick227]

I like the concept of meme's. It's an effective means to understand information and the ability of information to persist. The Bible is an evolutionary fit set of memes. It will outlast all of us. When we understand what memes are we can understand why the Bible has survived for thousands of years and is the most printed book in history and the knowledge in it held by more people than any other.

As to the OP and the question, it's a good one. As a Mormon I gave much of my time and resources in furtherance of Mormon and Christian memes. Will memes take over? To the extent that they can they already have.

It seems to me that meme theory and the belief in memes are an inevitable consequence of Universal Darwinism being more widely accepted. Once the characteristics of the gene as replicator were clearly delineated, so eventual recognition of the meme as replicator looks to me inevitable.

Nick

[Nick227]

Just saw/heard the talk.

Seems to me that she mixes two levels of description. If "we" are going to speak about these ideas that replicate independently of "us", which they cannot do except in devices that we make, then who is this "us" that she was discussing?

Thanks, Shadron, for posting the link.

My understanding from the talk was there now may validly be considered to be a third replicator - a teme. Previously there were memes, which were dependent on humans to replicate, but with the rise in new technology this is no longer so. We have storage and transmission devices, such as computers or mp3 players, which can do what humans do.

Currently, temes appear to be driving humans to increasingly exploit the earth's resources to further their own replication, through designing and building more and more technology. In the future this technology may be able to improve its own design and construct these new designs without human input.

Why discuss ideas at this level as acting in determined ways, but still speak of humans on a gross level where free will makes sense to discuss?

I take your point.

I think it is a valid way to interpret what is going on, when one considers things from the gene, meme, or teme's eye view. It could also, I think, be considered as an inflammatory perspective, which I would agree as excessive if it wasn't for the fact that it does seem to be happening and I think more attention does have to be paid to it. People need to consider how they identify themselves - as a biological self, as a narrative self, or as the temporary host for a new replicator until it can take over for itself.

It is either the case that we decide everything, or that the things we call "us" are conduits through which material and ideas pass and act in either determined or undetermined ways. To mix the level at which we speak of humans and the level at which we could speak of ideas is confused. It is similar to the confusion that arises when discussing evolution at the level of general allele change over time and individual animals trying to survive difficult environments and pretending that they can be described using the same language.

It is confusing but I think arguably a justified approach to raising awareness of the issue.

Nick

[cyborg]

The things being imitated are ideas.

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".

[Ichneumonwasp]

Thanks, Shadron, for posting the link.

My understanding from the talk was there now may validly be considered to be a third replicator - a teme. Previously there were memes, which were dependent on humans to replicate, but with the rise in new technology this is no longer so. We have storage and transmission devices, such as computers or mp3 players, which can do what humans do.

Currently, temes appear to be driving humans to increasingly exploit the earth's resources to further their own replication, through designing and building more and more technology. In the future this technology may be able to improve its own design and construct these new designs without human input.



I take your point.

I think it is a valid way to interpret what is going on, when one considers things from the gene, meme, or teme's eye view. It could also, I think, be considered as an inflammatory perspective, which I would agree as excessive if it wasn't for the fact that it does seem to be happening and I think more attention does have to be paid to it. People need to consider how they identify themselves - as a biological self, as a narrative self, or as the temporary host for a new replicator until it can take over for itself.



It is confusing but I think arguably a justified approach to raising awareness of the issue.

Nick



So, it's an overly complicated way of saying -- don't spend so much time on the computer, get back to nature, or guess what, Terminator is really gonna happen? The problem Bokonon (and I sort of agree) has with it is that there isn't anything new here. We've known that technology drives technology for as long as there has been technology.

If we want to discuss things at the level of the gene or meme, then we can't bring in higher levels of discourse and pretend that the higher level has free will that has been taken over by a replicating idea. That higher level simply is a bundle of those replicating ideas doing what they do in conjunction with replicating biological packets doing what they do.

We can't talk about them "taking over humans" when they are part of the bundle that "is humans".

[bokonon]

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".
"Orange is in this year" is definitely an idea. No stretch there.

The stretch comes in when one attempts to personify the "orange is in" idea, give it volition, and make statements like "This meme wants to reproduce. It's just using us to spread as widely as it can." That's when it's just silly.

Zippers? Useful idea. People are happy to make them and use them in a variety of situations. Velcro? Useful idea, with even wider usefulness. Orange pigments and dyes? Useful in a variety of situations, the ideas men have conceived for making and improving them will be preserved in the tiny sliver of humanity employed in doing such things, but those ideas will never gain a foothold in most minds. The color orange itself will be widely employed, from bags to labels to fashion to road cones. "Orange will propagate if it can" will remain a nonsense statement.

It becomes doubly silly when one attempts to introduce a new buzzword, "temes," to personify the technology we use to store and distribute ideas.

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.

[Nick227]

So, it's an overly complicated way of saying -- don't spend so much time on the computer, get back to nature, or guess what, Terminator is really gonna happen? The problem Bokonon (and I sort of agree) has with it is that there isn't anything new here. We've known that technology drives technology for as long as there has been technology.

If we want to discuss things at the level of the gene or meme, then we can't bring in higher levels of discourse and pretend that the higher level has free will that has been taken over by a replicating idea. That higher level simply is a bundle of those replicating ideas doing what they do in conjunction with replicating biological packets doing what they do.

We can't talk about them "taking over humans" when they are part of the bundle that "is humans".

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

[Nick227]

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.

Can you explain exactly why you find the idea ridiculous? 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. 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.

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?

Nick

[Gurdur]

Susan Blackmore's thesis only makes any sense if it is posited that humans have no control over the so-called "memes" and "temes" that supposedly so control humans.

That seems more than dubious as a proposition; while Susan Blackmore does indeed always advocate the corollary thesis of there being no limited free will at all, there are two huge glaring problems in her whole stance that should be very obvious:


one, how she pleads for something or other she can't quite specify, when actually pleading should make no sense at all if her whole thesis was in fact correct
´.
(that one above goes together with the ridiculousness of passionately advocating psychological determinism, a ludicrous happenstance that never gets tackled by those who so act as missionaries for psych determinism)
.
and two, her thesis about temes would only be provably correct if it could be shown that humans were in fact creating machines only for the sake of other machines, not for the sake of humans.


I'ld say her thesis is dead in the water.

[quarky]

I really want to argue here, but my car wants me to take it for a drive.

[Nick227]

Susan Blackmore's thesis only makes any sense if it is posited that humans have no control over the so-called "memes" and "temes" that supposedly so control humans.

I think Blackmore is simply arguing for greater recognition of the potential issue and for more investigation into it. She herself states, as quoted in the OP, that "maybe it's a load of garbage" but that there needs to be more investigation in order to assess a potential problem.

I haven't seen anyone on this thread yet create a meaningful statement to counter her concerns.

Nick

[Beerina]

Thanks.



Is the realisation of this also part of an evolutionary process, though? That sounds a bit towards teleology, though I could be wrong.

Anyway, Blackmore (in The Meme Machine), essentially considers that developing more awareness in the moment is the only way out. (Note I hesitate to use the word "meditation" on this forum!)

Nick


Any skeptic can tell you memes have been around for thousands, if not tens of thousands of years, and have been in control.

The most common example is religion. However, we now have variants on secular "religions" called politics.



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.

Successful reproduction of said memes occurs when more and more people adopt them, regardless of how "true" they are. Which is to say, regardless of whether the mental model they build up in your mind accurately reflects reality.


Religion is very successful, even though no gods or supernatural things exist. They have mechanisms to spread. Seductive messages that are pleasing. Coercion or even murder if it isn't. Oh how nice, helping the poor. I'll join! Oh my god, those people are waving their hands at God in the wrong way, kill them!

Evolutionary biologist-psychologist-sociologists are barking up the wrong tree if they presume said things must be beneficial to the organism. Hardly. A parasite need only spread faster than it destroys to be successful. To not kill off its host organisms faster than they reproduce and spread. To spread to the "uninfected" faster than it kills the infected.


It is what it is, which isn't a real organism per se. Once the current older gen of biologist who choke on the "organism" concept die off, the meme concept will become a central idea and be more fully explored.



And back to "religion". Note that the modern, secular "religion" of democratic politics (little d). Most meme variants include Vox Populi Vox Dei, if you control the legislature, you can pass any law you want, with no restrictions. Note how memes with that concept are more powerful than those without, i.e. a constution, say, that forces supermajority for large changes -- if those memes can successfully overcome barriers in their way, which they have.

"(Sob story) and therefore we'll nationalize the coal mines, medicine, trains, what the hell ever." Narrative builds: "The Supreme Court in the 1930's almost got in the way of the building of a modern state that everybody agrees is the way to live."

And so on.

[Wowbagger]

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.

[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.

[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. (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes.html)

[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.

[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...............

[GreyICE]

Zippers? Useful idea. People are happy to make them and use them in a variety of situations. Velcro? Useful idea, with even wider usefulness. Orange pigments and dyes? Useful in a variety of situations, the ideas men have conceived for making and improving them will be preserved in the tiny sliver of humanity employed in doing such things, but those ideas will never gain a foothold in most minds. The color orange itself will be widely employed, from bags to labels to fashion to road cones. "Orange will propagate if it can" will remain a nonsense statement.

It becomes doubly silly when one attempts to introduce a new buzzword, "temes," to personify the technology we use to store and distribute ideas.

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.
Now hold up a second. There is an oft-repeated quote about people and intelligence. It talks about how individuals can be bright, interesting, witty, and overall great. But people? Masses of people are invariable stupid.

The social gestalt is definitely an interesting phenomena. Information propagation. What causes the social gestalt to act in ways that no one individual would cause? Take riots. If you put most of the rioters in a voting booth and asked them 'riot?' you'd probably get 95% no, 5% yes. Angry? Sure. Want to do something about it? Sure. Riot and loot? They'd sit there and tell you 'no, I wouldn't.' And yet they do. Why? What triggered it?

Certainly information propagates through the social gestalt in a way that is hard to predict, much less control. And while the strawman of 'meme overlords' is obviously worthless, the concept that certain ideas have the power to hijack society for a time is powerful. Certainly marketing attempts to tap exactly that frequently, looking to create memes, social patterns, crazes.

[Beerina]

An organism is it's body...and its behaviors. Increased brain size allowed for learning via imitation and via association (discovery). So suddenly behavior could pass on to the next generation without wasting time evolving it into a genetic instinct.

It picks up the pace of organism evolution several magnitudes faster than sexual reproduction did, itself a vast improvement in scouring the fitness gradient descent space.

It's not that hard, nor is it illogical or a poor model of a system. It is not an analogy. It is what it is.

[RandFan]

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 don't understand your argument. Why do some ants farm aphids and some don't? Was it evolutionary pressures? Yes.

You are making a fundamental mistake about evolution. Evolution isn't a ladder that goes from good to better. Evolution is more like a tree or streams of water finding the course of least resistance. One society conquering another is a great example of evolution. That one society could conquer the other is proof that there were memes that were more fit for survival. It couldn't get any more straight forward.