Are Memes Taking Over?

[Nick227]

I read an interview with Susan Blackmore on the subject of memetics, which took place during this year's TED Conference, and wondered what forum members thought of it.

Nick

Originally Posted by Wired

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Nick227

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.

Originally Posted by Nick227

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]

Originally Posted by paximperium

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]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

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

Thanks.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

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]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

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/s...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]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

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]

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Nick227

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.

Originally Posted by Agular

"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]

Originally Posted by Agular

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

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

[cyborg]

Originally Posted by bokonon

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Agular

"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]

Originally Posted by shadron

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

Not quite as bad as "personally", though.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp

Not quite as bad as "personally", though.

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

[Ichneumonwasp]

Originally Posted by RandFan

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]

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp

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?

[bokonon]

Originally Posted by cyborg

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Nick227

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]

Originally Posted by cyborg

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]

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp

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]

Originally Posted by bokonon

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:

1. 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)
   .
2. 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Nick227

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.