Dawkins and Memetics

[rocketdodger]

Soounds like you need Dawkins - that's very much in line with his meme theory. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme)

I am actually a big supporter of meme theory, and that is exactly the kind of thing my question was about. I was wondering how many *other* areas people have been able to, at least theoretically, apply evolutionary theory to. For instance, if one were to drive the synthesis of a chemical over a series of reactions using selective pressures at each step, might that not be considered a form of evolution? Or is evolution, by definition, limited to "having something to do with life," etc?

[Dr Adequate]

Well, there's genetic algorithms.

Otherwise, not much --- if it isn't evolution, it isn't evolution. Memes are really a metaphor rather than a theory.

[rocketdodger]

Otherwise, not much --- if it isn't evolution, it isn't evolution. Memes are really a metaphor rather than a theory.

So what is "evolution?" Why aren't memes examples of evolution on a multi-organism scale?

[jimbob]

Just my thoughts and reasoning (helped by some conversations with bubblefish trying to promote the concept of a master meme).

Because memes are a metaphor, an interesting metaphor, but still a metaphor.

Do "ideas" replicate, or is it more accurate to say they are communicated? Do they mutate, or do they sometimes "change" in a more deliberate fashion.

If I proposed the idea that people who dodged rockets were unhealthily obsesssed with the Goddard space centre, it is possible that you might propose the idea that people who choose lab mice as their avatars are [insert favourite insult here].

There is a chance that you wouldn't have come up with this idea otherwise, so is that a mutation of the previous idea?

[six7s]

Because memes are a metaphor, an interesting metaphor, but still a metaphor.

Do "ideas" replicate, or is it more accurate to say they are communicated? Do they mutate, or do they sometimes "change" in a more deliberate fashion

Metaphor or not, the IDiots will twist it to suit, esp in front of a gullible audience and countered only by the likes of me, for whom a little knowledge is damn frustrating :(

jimbob's rhetorical q "Do ideas replicate" reminds me of a particularly frustrating local IDiot whose (circular) argument relies on the notion that heavier-than-air flight was independantly acheived in various locations, citing 'building blocks of knowledge' (a non-woo concept?) combined with some bull-science (aka woo) to prove some heinous über-woo

If anyone can (a) understand what I'm on about and (b) has links or other references to anything that can (preferably neatly and simply) counter this particular flavour of IDiocy, please let me know

[Henners]

Because memes are a metaphor, an interesting metaphor, but still a metaphor.



Ah, the "memes are a metaphor" meme: one of my favourites.

Dawkins doesn't think that. You should read what he wrote.

[steenkh]

Because memes are a metaphor, an interesting metaphor, but still a metaphor.
Metaphor of what?

Do "ideas" replicate, or is it more accurate to say they are communicated? Do they mutate, or do they sometimes "change" in a more deliberate fashion.
What is the conceptual difference between replication and communication. A writer carries a number of memes. He writes a book presenting a them, and a number of readers take up these memes. They have now been replicated to more copies, and cuómmunicated at the same time. Some of the readers do not get the idea completely, or they expand the idea with ideas of their own, and the resulting meme in their heads has now mutated. I do not understand what you mean by mutating in a more deliberate fashion, but I suppose it could happen, such as when a creationist somebody wants to discredit evolution, and he comes up with the idea that evolution leads to "social darwinism". This could be an example of deliberate mutation of memes that are part of the meme complex of evolutionary theory.

If I proposed the idea that people who dodged rockets were unhealthily obsesssed with the Goddard space centre, it is possible that you might propose the idea that people who choose lab mice as their avatars are [insert favourite insult here].
There is a chance that you wouldn't have come up with this idea otherwise, so is that a mutation of the previous idea?
You lost me here.

[Henners]

steenkh,

As well as mutations of memes, there is also a struggle for existence, formation of memeplexes, and even cases where a meme can be successful even when the brain that it's in perishes.

These are not metaphoric, they are parallels.

Calling a meme a metaphor is rather like calling a snooker ball a metaphor of a sphere.

[steenkh]

Exactly. I have not read Dawkins, but the idea seemed intuitively correct from the first moment I heard about it.

[Dr Adequate]

So what is "evolution?" Why aren't memes examples of evolution on a multi-organism scale? Well, because the mutation isn't random, because the selection isn't mindless, and because there is frequent de novo production of new memes by intelligent design.

[Dr Adequate]

Ah, the "memes are a metaphor" meme: one of my favourites.

Dawkins doesn't think that. You should read what he wrote. I would urge you to consider the possibility that when people disagree with Dawkins, that is not always because they haven't read what he wrote. It may also be because they have read what he wrote and disagree with it.

[Henners]

Well, because the mutation isn't random, because the selection isn't mindless, and because there is frequent de novo production of new memes by intelligent design.


Sometimes memetic theory is dismissed simply because it is Lamarckian.

To which the obvious reply is: so what?

The failure of Lamarckism in biological systems is not a valid reason to dismiss it in all cases.

Similarly, ID. It has been successfully applied by Lockheed for yonks.

Incidentally, your claim that the selection isn't mindless is not true in all cases, for an existing scientific memeplex can select against woo without needing too much detail concerning the particular woo being rejected.

There are two particular cases that strongly support memetics.

The first is where parasitic memes can survive at the expense of the human brain that hosts them - and this is similar to the behaviour modification of their host that some parasites inflict to aid their dispersal and reproduction.

The second is the evolution of complex instincts - where a learned behaviour becomes fixed in a population - language being the obvious example.

[steenkh]

Well, because the mutation isn't random, because the selection isn't mindless, and because there is frequent de novo production of new memes by intelligent design.
Why do you think that the mutation of memes is not random? Most replicated memes are remarkably similar to the original, but that is the same for genes. Memes are changed through active thought processes in humans, but I do not see how this could be anything than random. The way people get inspiration has always struck me as being chaotic. Some people sprout the strangest ideas, while others have difficulty ever getting a novel idea. I would say that it is the selection process that is weeding out odd ideas right from the start, which is why some of us, with presumably stronger selection have so much difficulty coming up with something new. Besides, an obvious mutation mechanism for memes is misunderstandings, which definitely are not directed.

The selection process can only take place in people's heads, which is where the memes reside, so it is obvious that the selection process cannot be mindless. But biological genes slug it out in their natural environment with other genes, mostly residing in other animals, whereas memes mostly struggle for survival in the mind of a single individual before they get expressed in a way that can cause replication. The memes are in control of the mind much as genes are in control of the biological environment.

I agree that construction of new memes by "intelligent design" is dissimilar to the workings of biological genes, but at the end of the day the newly created memes will have to fight for survival like every other meme, just like genes constructed entirely by humans will one day enter the environment and assert themselves or perish.

Memes are very different from genes in many respects, and most obviously, memes do not have a common ancestor or an evolutionary history in the same way as genes, because memes can be created randomly by design or by external events, but the similarities are so great that I cannot see how they can simply be dismissed.

Memes "cross-breed" much more readily than genes do, and this fact, together with the easy creation of new memes makes their evolutionary trees much more complicated than those for genes. Nevertheless, some memes have evolutionary histories such as religions where many are known to be related to each other, and it is clear that the same forces of mutation and selection are working on them. Just look at how monotheism has been sweeping over humanity in the last 2000 years. I think it is difficult to deny that religions are subject to mutation and selection, even if there are obvious differences to genes.

[Dr Adequate]

There are two particular cases that strongly support memetics. Please tell me the laws of memetics.

[Dr Adequate]

Why do you think that the mutation of memes is not random? The fact that such events are very often the product of intelligent design.

But the similarities are so great that I cannot see how they can simply be dismissed. I don't dismiss the similarities. But nor do I deny the differences.

I think it is difficult to deny that religions are subject to mutation and selection ... If we are going to speak in analogies, I wouldn't deny it either. But it's not evolution as in biological evolution, is it?

[jimbob]

Because memes are a metaphor, an interesting metaphor, but still a metaphor.

Metaphor of what?

A metaphor for how ideas can spread, change, and compete.

As I said, an interesting metaphor, the idea of the "burn all heretics" meme, for example, but it misses many important differences. Some of these differences could be used by people who want to confuse people about evolution.


Do "ideas" replicate, or is it more accurate to say they are communicated? Do they mutate, or do they sometimes "change" in a more deliberate fashion.

What is the conceptual difference between replication and communication. A writer carries a number of memes. He writes a book presenting a them, and a number of readers take up these memes. They have now been replicated to more copies, and cuómmunicated at the same time. Some of the readers do not get the idea completely, or they expand the idea with ideas of their own, and the resulting meme in their heads has now mutated. I do not understand what you mean by mutating in a more deliberate fashion, but I suppose it could happen, such as when a creationist somebody wants to discredit evolution, and he comes up with the idea that evolution leads to "social darwinism". This could be an example of deliberate mutation of memes that are part of the meme complex of evolutionary theory.

The point is that the idea was "intelligently designed" in order to counter or to further the previous idea. This is not how evolution works, nor even selective breeding.

"They have now been replicated to more copies, and cuómmunicated at the same time. Some of the readers do not get the idea completely, or they expand the idea with ideas of their own, and the resulting meme in their heads has now mutated."

And some people might be offended by the idea, and deliberately devise counter arguments.

Alternatively, say this was a scientific idea, people might provide further tests of this idea, and alter it in response to this. Is it helpful to describe Millikan's experimental result that the charge of an electron was 1.592 × 10−19 Coulomb, or that the modern "meme" for the charge of an electron is 1.602... × 10−19 Coulomb? It is an idea, so should be subject to the memetic evolutionary pressures, but neither "memes" mutated.



If I proposed the idea that people who dodged rockets were unhealthily obsesssed with the Goddard space centre, it is possible that you might propose the idea that people who choose lab mice as their avatars are [insert favourite insult here].

There is a chance that you wouldn't have come up with this idea otherwise, so is that a mutation of the previous idea?

You lost me here.

Not too surprised, what I was trying to say (in a slightly more oblique fashion than the esteemed Dr A :blush:), was that the "mutation" was not random, but deliberate, and as a consequence of the previous idea.

This is not how mutation of genes works. There is no mechanism in evolution where an information block is the direct cause of a directly "opposing information block".

Indeed, the replicators (but not the templates) might compete with, and prey on each other but I can't see what the opposite "template" would be, whilst I can see what opposite ideas can be.

What is the opposite "idea" to "smoking in resturants should be encouraged"?
What is the opposite "meme" to "smoking in resturants should be encouraged"?

What is the opposite to the HOXA1 gene? Did an intelligent agent develop this as a direct response to the gene? Are the previous two questions meaningless? What about the questions about ideas?

If we are arguing that evolution is mindless, and doesn't need intelligent design to work, it seems foolish to pretend that something involving intelligent design is analogous to evolution.

Jim

[Henners]

Please tell me the laws of memetics.

These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms.

Just like Darwin said, in fact.

It's a parallel. It's not a figure of speech.

[jimbob]

There are parallels, but there are important differences.

DId the "meme2 that "memes are a metaphor" arise from random mutation of ideas? No. The idea that "memes are metaphor" arose in direct response to the idea of memes, and as a result of people thinking about it.

Genetics is interesting in that it tells us how genetic information is transimtted, and (re)produced. With memes, the method of transmission might be susceptible to a memtic treatment, but the production and reprodution of ideas is not. The change isn't random.

Ideas don't evolve they get changed by intelligent agencies.

The idea of memes fighting for survival is also differnet to genetics. What organism can select which genes to have, and can change them later? What organism can have suddenly acquire "opposing" genes? Can a person hold conflcting ideas?

[Henners]

There are parallels, but there are important differences.

DId the "meme2 that "memes are a metaphor" arise from random mutation of ideas? No. The idea that "memes are metaphor" arose in direct response to the idea of memes, and as a result of people thinking about it.

Genetics is interesting in that it tells us how genetic information is transimtted, and (re)produced. With memes, the method of transmission might be susceptible to a memtic treatment, but the production and reprodution of ideas is not. The change isn't random.

Ideas don't evolve they get changed by intelligent agencies.

The idea of memes fighting for survival is also differnet to genetics. What organism can select which genes to have, and can change them later? What organism can have suddenly acquire "opposing" genes? Can a person hold conflcting ideas?

You are confusing the "intelligence" with the environment.

And you are completely wrong to state that "ideas don't evolve". Quite possibly you are the only person on the planet holding that meme.

[Henners]

Listen, Jimbo, I don't mean to be unkind, but it's generally considered rude to approach a field where you have done no research, to assume that you know about it when you don't, and to build a demolition team out of straw men tarring the field with the same brush as the creationist one.

See my quote from Darwin above.

There are memetic parallels to each and every step of the analysis that led Darwin to Evolution by Natural Selection.

Why not deal with the meat of the problem instead of the myth?

[arthwollipot]

Yes, but how much does a meme weigh?

:scarper:

[The Atheist]

Whoa!

Good discussion guys, and I might even join in, I have one I'd like to put forward, but it's in the wrong place here.

I'm going to ask that this be split off into yet another meme thread!

See you there!

[Henners]

Yes, but how much does a meme weigh?

:scarper:

More than the gene for web-building in spiders

[steenkh]

The fact that such events are very often the product of intelligent design.
I would say that it is the result of the interaction of other memes. Memes are intelligent design, so they can hardly be blamed for it.

If we are going to speak in analogies, I wouldn't deny it either. But it's not evolution as in biological evolution, is it?
No, I agree, it is not evolution as in biological evolution, but the two kinds of evolution have strong similarities that would make it worthwhile to study one in order to understand the other. Memetic evolution also have the same elements of mutation and selection, but both work in a different way from biological mutation and selection.

I think that because biological evolution is simpler, it can be used to understand memetics, but in my current understanding of the subject, I have doubts if memetics can be used to understand genetics.

[Jeff Corey]

...There are two particular cases that strongly support memetics.

The first is where parasitic memes can survive at the expense of the human brain that hosts them - and this is similar to the behaviour modification of their host that some parasites inflict to aid their dispersal and reproduction.

The second is the evolution of complex instincts - where a learned behaviour becomes fixed in a population - language being the obvious example.
If those are the best you can come up with, I find no convincing evidence whatsoever. The first is an unconvincing analogy and the second, complete nonsense. Humans don't have "complex instincts", and even if those imaginary entities existed, they - by definition - would not involve learned behavior..

[Henners]

I would say that it is the result of the interaction of other memes. Memes are intelligent design, so they can hardly be blamed for it.


I would agree with that in a way, but I also feel that it confuses the phenotype of a meme with the underlying brain structure in which it is stored.

We don't actually know how memories are laid down, so to claim that that is intelligent design is really very far fetched indeed.

[Henners]

If those are the best you can come up with, I find no convincing evidence whatsoever. The first is an unconvincing analogy and the second, complete nonsense. Humans don't have "complex instincts", and even if those imaginary entities existed, they - by definition - would not involve learned behavior..

I really could not give a monkey's flunkey whether you are convinced or not, Jeff.

Your failure to find any convincing evidence is not unrelated to your failure to even look for it.

You will probably find, also, that when I provide language as an example of a complex instinct and you dismiss it out of hand and declare that it would not involve learned behaviour "by definition" (whose definition, exactly?), you are simply evading the issue.

Which is why I couldn't care less.

If I want to be arrogantly dismissed, I can always write a letter to the BBC complaining about them boradcasting creationism at breakfast time on Radio 4.

Language has instinctive components, doesn't it?

There are evolved brain structures that support language, aren't there? They would be genetically derived, would they not? And they are also modified by learning, are they not?

Language involves learning, doesn't it?

I therefore present it as an example of a "complex instinct", it being an inherently genetic predisposition to particular behaviours that is modified by memes. (English ones, in my case.)

[steenkh]

A metaphor for how ideas can spread, change, and compete.

As I said, an interesting metaphor, the idea of the "burn all heretics" meme, for example, but it misses many important differences. Some of these differences could be used by people who want to confuse people about evolution.
This can only happen if it is claimed that memetics and genetics are the same, but it is indeed a strong accusation. Should we drop the study of the evolution of memes because some people would try to confuse the issues?

The point is that the idea was "intelligently designed" in order to counter or to further the previous idea. This is not how evolution works, nor even selective breeding.
What is "intelligent design" if not memes fostering other memes to strengthen their own case? Clearly, this cannot happen happen in the biological equivalent, but this is a another field with different rules. Memes "live" in the minds of people, and everything about them will be intelligently designed.

And some people might be offended by the idea, and deliberately devise counter arguments.
But why would they do that if they were not influenced by other memes? The counter arguments would be memes created to bolster the parent memes and weaken the competition.

Alternatively, say this was a scientific idea, people might provide further tests of this idea, and alter it in response to this. Is it helpful to describe Millikan's experimental result that the charge of an electron was 1.592 × 10−19 Coulomb, or that the modern "meme" for the charge of an electron is 1.602... × 10−19 Coulomb? It is an idea, so should be subject to the memetic evolutionary pressures, but neither "memes" mutated.
You got me there. As I have stated before, I have not read Dawkins, and my reactions here are simply based on my intuitive understanding of the subject. I will not try to claim that I understand everything about the theory, or that the theory has no loopholes. My immediate reaction, however, was that these memes do not mutate because of the selection pressures (any mutation would perish because it would contradict precise measurements), and that the modern value would actually be a mutation of the older value, caused by more accurate measurements. Do you think that would be satisfactory?

This is not how mutation of genes works. There is no mechanism in evolution where an information block is the direct cause of a directly "opposing information block".
Well, I do not think that the memetic system need to be an exact equivalent of the biological system. (I hope that Dawkins is not claiming the opposite). But in the example where you used the dialogue in an argument (I think I finally got it :) ) I would say that that there are many memes working inside each debater's mind, and the counter arguments seem to me to be spawned by the memes they support, and not by the memes they counter.

What is the opposite "idea" to "smoking in resturants should be encouraged"?
What is the opposite "meme" to "smoking in resturants should be encouraged"?

What is the opposite to the HOXA1 gene? Did an intelligent agent develop this as a direct response to the gene? Are the previous two questions meaningless? What about the questions about ideas?
I do not think those questions are meaningless, but I am not sure if they are relevant. If we look at the biological system, one gene, such as HOXA1, might not have an opposite gene, but a competing animal might have a gene that causes it to outcompete all animals that carry the HOXA1 gene.

If we are arguing that evolution is mindless, and doesn't need intelligent design to work, it seems foolish to pretend that something involving intelligent design is analogous to evolution.
I see your point, but as I said, I believe that because memes reside in the mind, they are one of the causes of intelligent design, not the product of intelligent design. At any rate, memetics is so obviously different from genetics that the analogy cannot mindlessly be used on every areas of either theory. You may be right that ID'ers will pounce upon it, but what can we do? Memes seem to be there, and they seem to undergo evolution with mutation and selection - should we just leave it, in order to foil ID'ers?

[steenkh]

I would agree with that in a way, but I also feel that it confuses the phenotype of a meme with the underlying brain structure in which it is stored.

We don't actually know how memories are laid down, so to claim that that is intelligent design is really very far fetched indeed.
Is it necessary to know how the brain works in order to know that ideas exist in the brain and fight each other?

[Jeff Corey]

...Language involves learning, doesn't it?

I therefore present it as an example of a "complex instinct", it being an inherently genetic predisposition to particular behaviours that is modified by memes. (English ones, in my case.)

I noticed that you chided Jimbob (in post 20) for approaching a field where he had done no research. I suggest you do some research into what the term "instinct" means, in the fields of biology and psychology.

[cyborg]

I am not convinced that a concept as nebulous as what constitutes 'intelligence' is a valid way to think about the validity of memes as a description for an informatic phenomena.

But it's not evolution as in biological evolution, is it?

I think each and every one of us is willing to conceed that if it doesn't involve biology it's not biological evolution Dr A. That is not what is at issue here: the issue is the best way to describe and understand an observed process.

Appealing too much to the specifics of biological evolution misses the point that the concept has been abstracted away significantly from biological systems of late.

The most basic components of evolution are mutation and selection. Without mutation selection is worthless since nothing new will arise. Without selection every mutation is equally worthless and identifying any entity of interest is impossible. Pretty much everything we can identify after that is some higher-order emergent property.

Refering to your earlier statement:

because the mutation isn't random, because the selection isn't mindless,

I fail to see how a non-random mutation and mindful selection actually affects the basic process of evolution: a non-random mutation is still a change and mindful selection is still selection.

As I know you are fully aware genetic algorithms often do not use purely random mutation because that requires specialist equipment beyond that you normally find in a computer. It does not, however, reduce the usefulness of the algorithm: it is 'random enough'.

Also in genetic algorithms the selection is certainly 'mindful' since we have to program the goal we want the algorithm to reach. Again the usefulness is not reduced: it doesn't really matter if selection arises naturally or is imposed artificially. How could anything within the system 'know' the difference anyway?

The whole discussion here has revolved around, "random/non-random" and "intelligent/unintelligent" as if they were completely irreconsilable opposites. I know mathematically that is not the case for randomness and the later seems to be more about the opinion of beings who categorise things as one or the other rather than being based on any objective standard.

[Henners]

Is it necessary to know how the brain works in order to know that ideas exist in the brain and fight each other?

The only point that I am making is that the phenotypes of memes interact in one way, and we can see what that is, and that it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that their underlying storage mechanisms also interact, in other ways.

Stephen Pinker points out that there are grammatical structures that tend to group together in particular combinations across all languages. This could be explained by supposing that the underlying brain structures that support one structure also favour other structures belonging to the same group.

One of the examples he gives for such a grammatical structure, if I remember correctly, is whether adjectives are placed before the noun as in English, or after it, as in French. (And this strongly correlates with other structures in the language.)

It may not seem like a big thing, but apparently French people listening to a description in English can get very frustrated by the way that it takes so long to get to the point. So, in English I might have a big, heavy, travertine-topped dining table. While, in French, I have a "table" first and foremost, followed by its descriptors.

[Henners]

I noticed that you chided Jimbob (in post 20) for approaching a field where he had done no research. I suggest you do some research into what the term "instinct" means, in the fields of biology and psychology.

Or I could just send back the degrees, and email Stephen Pinker that Jeff says he doesn't know is subject.

Your arrogant approach is exemplified by the fact that you claimed:

(a) that complex instincts are imaginary

and that

(b) they have a "definition"

both in the same sentence.

You are clearly a wind-up merchant and the fact that you have completely ignored my biologically sound presentation of language as just such a complex instinct is further evidence of that.

Please try to take a more adult approach to the discussion.

[Jeff Corey]

Or I could just send back the degrees.

Your arrogant approach is exemplified by the fact that you claimed:

(a) that complex instincts are imaginary

and that

(b) they have a "definition"

both in the same sentence.

You are clearly a wind-up merchant and the fact that you have completely ignored my biologically sound presentation of language as just such a complex instinct is further evidence of that.

Try to read the posts a bit more closely. I stated that complex "instincts" in humans are imaginary. They have a definition in the fields of biology and psychology as "unlearned, species-specific behaviors". Since laymen use the term so loosely, we prefer to talk about "fixed action patterns" instead.
If you have any degrees in those fields, I doubt sending them back will result in a tuition refund.

[Henners]

Try to read the posts a bit more closely. I stated that complex "instincts" in humans are imaginary. They have a definition in the fields of biology and psychology as "unlearned, species-specific behaviors". Since laymen use the term so loosely, we prefer to talk about "fixed action patterns" instead.
If you have any degrees in those fields, I doubt sending them back will result in a tuition refund.

(a) No, you didn't say that. You are retreating from what you said, and doing so with an arrogant, "Try to read the posts more closely..." preamble. I did ask you to try a more adult approach. Was that a complete waste of time?

(b) You have still not even addressed the concept of "language" as a "complex instinct", as I described it. More avoidance, in other words.

(c) Language as an instinct is not a "fixed action pattern" by any stretch of the imagination. It has co-evolved and interdependent genetic and memetic components.

(d) Behaviours that originate in the expression of a gene or geneplex are instincts. There's a definition for you.

(e) Do you refer to yourself as "we" because you are royalty?

[steenkh]

The only point that I am making is that the phenotypes of memes interact in one way, and we can see what that is, and that it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that their underlying storage mechanisms also interact, in other ways.
If the underlying storage mechanisms interact with the memes, I would think it would take the form of mutation or selection. My brain, for instance, tends to forget things, and I guess that some memes might be garbled and mutated because of this. I certainly know some jokes that have lost their punchlines because of this.

It may not seem like a big thing, but apparently French people listening to a description in English can get very frustrated by the way that it takes so long to get to the point. So, in English I might have a big, heavy, travertine-topped dining table. While, in French, I have a "table" first and foremost, followed by its descriptors.
That is possible, but would linguistics be good examples of memes? Studies in creole languages seem to indicate that there really exist an underlying instinctual syntax. But in so far as not all concepts are equally well represented in a given syntax, this would result in mutations or selections, not in memes per se. At least, that is how I understand the concepts now.

[Jeff Corey]

(a) No, you didn't say that. You are retreating from what you said, and doing so with an arrogant, "Try to read the posts more closely..." preamble. I did ask you to try a more adult approach. Was that a complete waste of time?...
Post #25. "Humans don't have 'complex instincts'". That's exactly what I said.

[Henners]

Post #25. "Humans don't have 'complex instincts'". That's exactly what I said.


Well, make up your mind, please. You just said you stated something different from that.

Are any of my valid points going to get adressed at any point, or are you just here for an argument?

Incidentally, you didn't say whether you refer to yourself as "we" because you are royalty. I wouldn't want to get taken to task for using bad form and omitting the "...your royal highness".

[Jeff Corey]

Well, make up your mind, please. You just said you stated something different from that....
You really do have severe problem in reading comprehension.

[Henners]

That is possible, but would linguistics be good examples of memes? Studies in creole languages seem to indicate that there really exist an underlying instinctual syntax. But in so far as not all concepts are equally well represented in a given syntax, this would result in mutations or selections, not in memes per se. At least, that is how I understand the concepts now.

I think I see what you are saying, and I know that creole languages arise very quickly, within a couple of generations or so, and much too quickly for genetics to be playing a role.

However, the brain structures that support whatever language we actually use have been evolving on an evolutionary timescale. These are quite different from parts of the brain that evolved to process sensory input in the sense that the pressure driving the evolution of language processing in the brain was memetic, not physical.

This necessitates a positive feedback loop. I only need to read Chistopher Brookmyer to understand that there are some people who are far more evolved in language than I am.

[Henners]

You really do have severe problem in reading comprehension.

The next time you want to issue a puerile insult at my expense, would you please have the courtesy to do so in proper English.

[Henners]

Well I've tried, Jeff, and my level of reading comprehension is just not up to the job of making these two statements mean the same. Perhaps you can help?


#25

Humans don't have "complex instincts", and even if those imaginary entities existed, they - by definition - would not involve learned behavior

#34

I stated that complex "instincts" in humans are imaginary


While you are at it, would you be so kind as to explain to me why language cannot be described as a "complex instinct" in the way that I have defined "complex instinct" and "instinct".

I must reiterate that the longer you continue to avoid the substantial discussion points that I have raised, the more it looks as though you have nothing to say.

And would you please be so kind as to clarify the issue regarding the appropriate form of address to use with you. I don't normally correspond with royalty.

[jimbob]

This can only happen if it is claimed that memetics and genetics are the same, but it is indeed a strong accusation. Should we drop the study of the evolution of memes because some people would try to confuse the issues?

As I said, it is an interestuing metaphor, maybe good for a dinner party discussion. However I would argue that the differences are more important than the similarities, and could lead to poor understanding.

An analogy is only good as long as it is useful.

What is "intelligent design" if not memes fostering other memes to strengthen their own case? Clearly, this cannot happen happen in the biological equivalent, but this is a another field with different rules. Memes "live" in the minds of people, and everything about them will be intelligently designed.

As you said, the rules are different. If you change enough of the rules, then the utility of the analogy breaks down.



But why would they do that if they were not influenced by other memes? The counter arguments would be memes created to bolster the parent memes and weaken the competition.


But in the case of the discussion, the idea that memes are not particually useful is primarily caused by the communication of the idea that memes are useful. The idea that memes are useful hasn't mutated, as that idea is still available, but the counter idea, not a competing idea arose as a response to the original idea.


You got me there. As I have stated before, I have not read Dawkins, and my reactions here are simply based on my intuitive understanding of the subject. I will not try to claim that I understand everything about the theory, or that the theory has no loopholes. My immediate reaction, however, was that these memes do not mutate because of the selection pressures (any mutation would perish because it would contradict precise measurements), and that the modern value would actually be a mutation of the older value, caused by more accurate measurements. Do you think that would be satisfactory?


But how did the "idea" of the charge of an electron being 1.602e-19 Coulombs arise in the first place?

Through theories that predicted the existance of the electron, and then someone developing the experimental equipment to perform the measurements, and then through analysis of these measurements.

It was a deliberate process to create this idea.

Similarly with many (not all) technological improvements.

I want my system to perform better, lets try to replace complex mechanical engineering with (far more complex, but more robust and cheap) solid-state electrocs. Oh look I have invented the steadycam... (for example).


Well, I do not think that the memetic system need to be an exact equivalent of the biological system. (I hope that Dawkins is not claiming the opposite). But in the example where you used the dialogue in an argument (I think I finally got it :) ) I would say that that there are many memes working inside each debater's mind, and the counter arguments seem to me to be spawned by the memes they support, and not by the memes they counter.

Does that add anything to the statement that people create and communicate ideas, and ideas influence people?



I do not think those questions are meaningless, but I am not sure if they are relevant. If we look at the biological system, one gene, such as HOXA1, might not have an opposite gene, but a competing animal might have a gene that causes it to outcompete all animals that carry the HOXA1 gene.

An idea can have an opposite idea: "people who like silhouettes are/are not wonderful arbiters of taste"

Replicators can compete, and carriers of differnet variants of the same genes can compete, but they are not opposite.


I see your point, but as I said, I believe that because memes reside in the mind, they are one of the causes of intelligent design, not the product of intelligent design. At any rate, memetics is so obviously different from genetics that the analogy cannot mindlessly be used on every areas of either theory. You may be right that ID'ers will pounce upon it, but what can we do? Memes seem to be there, and they seem to undergo evolution with mutation and selection - should we just leave it, in order to foil ID'ers?

But the point is that memetics has to be so different from genetics.

As the way that ideas change is different from how genetic material evolves, and both the generation and the selection process is often highly deliberate, I would argue that little is left, except that popular ideas spread, and sometimes change. Certain ideas help some ideas to spread at the expense of other ideas.

Evolutionary biology: Random mutation of existing material and probabilistic selection

Memetics: Delilberate creation, spread, and alteration of ideas.

I am just going to create an idea (that will fail) but with the aim of helping me:

"It is good to send money God will love you greatly if you give lots of money to people called Jim".

This "meme" has just been created, with the goal of helping me get rich*. It is a (pretty poor) tool, not something that might replicate within people's intellects.


*hey it must be worth a try, and is more honest than 619 scams.

[Henners]

Memetics: Delilberate creation, spread, and alteration of ideas.

Again, I don't want to seem rude, Jimbo, but your characterisation of the meme argument as a packet of attributes that do not belong to the meme argument simply illustrates that your discussion of the meme argument is based upon ignorance of it.

It reminds me of a creationist telling me what is wrong with evolution, while not knowing what evolution is, but making a stab at it based on what they know about knitting.

[phaed]

I was wondering how many *other* areas people have been able to, at least theoretically, apply evolutionary theory to.

Evolution is an example of what's called a complex adaptive system (Google it to find out more, I can't post links yet). There are many such systems: economic markets, meme pools (as you point out), biological ecosystems, genetic algorithms, cellular automata, various kinds of formal systems, and so on.

Even solar system formation exhibits some level of natural selection, since only planets with nearly-circular orbits survive.

[Dymanic]

There are many such systems: economic markets, meme pools (as you point out), biological ecosystems, genetic algorithms, cellular automata, various kinds of formal systems, and so on.
One of my favorite examples is that which takes place within the immune system, with selection acting on competing lineages of B-cell clones. This is described in considerable detail in a book: Immunology and Evolution of Infectious Disease by Steven A. Frank. The entire book is available as a free download (a 2 mb PDF) at http://stevefrank.org/.

[phaed]

Great find.

[jimbob]

Again, I don't want to seem rude, Jimbo, but your characterisation of the meme argument as a packet of attributes that do not belong to the meme argument simply illustrates that your discussion of the meme argument is based upon ignorance of it.

It reminds me of a creationist telling me what is wrong with evolution, while not knowing what evolution is, but making a stab at it based on what they know about knitting.

What is actually wrong with my statement below?


Memetics: Delilberate creation, spread, and alteration of ideas.

Memes are "cultural information"; I prefer the word, "idea".
Are there any instances when the word "idea" couldn't be substituted?

As I said before, the concept does have interesting features, and there are parallels, withevolution, but if you have to stretch the analogy to fit reality, then it might be time to accept the limitations of the analogy.

Probably an example where memetics might be interesting is in the spread of urban myths. That might actually be modellable, but I would still say it is more likely to confuse.

"All models are wrong, some are useful" - George Box.

How useful is the idea of "memetics"?

Of course I talk about the "evolution of an idea", but only when I am being imprecise, and in general conversation. Otherwise I would talk about the "development" of an idea, because the mechanisms of creation, variation, selection, and reproduction are different from evolution, and closer to ID.

The selection (of ideas) is not mindless, the alteration (of ideas) is by intelligent agencies, the creation (of ideas) is by intelligent agencies. There is reproduction, i.e. selection by intelligent agencies.

Is it your contention that "the intelect" is just an environment for ideas to reproduce?

I am just repeating what Dr A said.

There are plenty of situations where evolution is appropriate, but memetics isn't one.

[phaed]

Dawkins proposed the idea of memes but left it up to others to formalize a research program. Some folks have taken up the mantle, but the memetics research community is still small.

Essentially, memetics is the study of the evolution of ideas and cultural artifacts, with a focus on the characteristics that make those memes "fit" (ie, what makes them spread). Why, for example, do people across all cultures tend to anthropomorphize animals and non-living objects (the first religions were animist religions that were driven largely by this process)?

Some believe it's because identifying other humans (other "selves," other intentional beings) was a crucial part of our Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (the [social] environment in which humans lived for 200,000 years). Our brains are prolific pattern-seeking machines, and they tend to identify a lot of false positives. Anthropomophizing is one kind of false positive, where we erroneously grant the characteristic of intentionality to non-intentional things.

Anyway, these are the sorts of questions that people in the field of memetics are concerned with.

[Jeff Corey]

None of those strike me as falsifiable questions. The meme thing appears to be a simile, an analogy, a metaphor or just plain B S. Similar to Freud's ego, id and vibrator.

[Henners]

None of those strike me as falsifiable questions. The meme thing appears to be a simile, an analogy, a metaphor or just plain B S. Similar to Freud's ego, id and vibrator.

My closely argued points are thus simply dismissed by Jeff. Enjoy life, your highness.

[Henners]

What is actually wrong with my statement below?


Memetics: Delilberate creation, spread, and alteration of ideas.


Here's the problem, Jimbo. You are being confused by what memetics really is, and the thing that you would like memetics to be.

Memes are "cultural information"; I prefer the word, "idea".
No they're not. Memes are information whose method of communication is not genetic. Your distillation of that confuses several different ideas. I prefer the word "clueless".

Are there any instances when the word "idea" couldn't be substituted?
Birdsong.

As I said before, the concept does have interesting features, and there are parallels, withevolution, but if you have to stretch the analogy to fit reality, then it might be time to accept the limitations of the analogy.
What? You have to stetch the idea to fir your own idea of what the idea is. Dead right on that.

Probably an example where memetics might be interesting is in the spread of urban myths. That might actually be modellable, but I would still say it is more likely to confuse.

Yes, isn't it nice to engage in pointless speculation.

"All models are wrong, some are useful" - George Box.

Another point you missed, there, then.

How useful is the idea of "memetics"?

How useful is the idea of "replicators"?

Of course I talk about the "evolution of an idea", but only when I am being imprecise, and in general conversation. Otherwise I would talk about the "development" of an idea, because the mechanisms of creation, variation, selection, and reproduction are different from evolution, and closer to ID.

ID is not a problem. Neither is Lamarckism. Just because those replicators that are genetic have particular characteristics, that does not mean that all replicators are similarly restricted.

The selection (of ideas) is not mindless, the alteration (of ideas) is by intelligent agencies, the creation (of ideas) is by intelligent agencies. There is reproduction, i.e. selection by intelligent agencies.

The selection of ideas is often completely mindless. Learn about "branding" for example. Part of its purpose is to allow you to make decisions without thinking about them. Why do you think that religions teach children that blind faith is a virtue?

Is it your contention that "the intelect" is just an environment for ideas to reproduce?

I believe that I've already communicated that I don't think that.

I am just repeating what Dr A said.

There are plenty of situations where evolution is appropriate, but memetics isn't one.

Memes: Elements of cultural information that are transmitted by non-genetic means.

Do they exist? I've alread presented the English language as an example.

Why not deal with a real example, Jimbo?