X-Message-Number: 28444
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:37:04 -0600
From: "Anthony ." <>
Subject: Re: memes

> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:54:34 -0400
> From: Keith Henson <>
> Subject: Re: basic memetics for little ol' me
>
> Just take it seriously and apply
> what we know about living things, and you understand memetics.

The point I'm trying to make is that it really doesn't apply.

> Where the concept is particularly useful is in evolutionary
> psychology.  There the kind of memes that do well in some circumstances vs.
> those that do well in other circumstances fits into a EP model of why and
> how humans go to war.

There are many other explanations as to why humans, say, go to war,
and they do not involve "memes" in their account.

The main problem with the "meme" concept is that it treats ideas as if
they are genes, prone to selection pressure. Selection pressure helps
our genes survive and thus the species continues.

But many ideas are anti-survival because we are largely irrational
animals with an interest in feeling good, important, and alive rather
than having an interest in the survival of the species. If selection
pressure helps a species survive, then our ideas are clearly not under
that selection pressure.

You might say - "but we're still here, so our ideas aren't so crazy".
I'd reply "do you see human activity in general as geared towards the
survival of the species, or to the survival or particular in-groups
(e.g. nations, cultures)?".

> Memes, as a class, are units of information that is copied from brain to
> brain.

And from media to brain?

So if you have no brain and no media, you cannot imitate a conspecific?

> And certainly there were memes being passed
> from generation to generation long before chipped rock.  Look up
> manuports.  But unlike bags or sharp sticks chipped rocks left traces you
> can see today.

Sure, I'm aware of this, which is why I asked my silly questions. By
your account, memes must have been around since one organism first
imitated another.

> >I know these might be annoying questions
>
> More like silly.

Come on, what is silly about trying to clarify a vague point made by
someone willing to clarify? Get rid of those dismissive memes, we're
all in the same species! ;)

> > where did the first meme come from? You must
> >answer this if you have any belief in evolution.
>
> That not even silly, it's *stupid.*
>
> Where did the first *gene* come from?  That's fairly well understood.  Same
> explanation, differ soup.

The analogy between genes and memes fails at various points. Ideas
come from bodily experience and interaction with the social and
natural environment. Bodies come from genes. Perhaps you can fit memes
somewhere into that account, but I don't see the point.

> >Huh!? Since when was philosophy the "wrong field" to discuss concepts?
>
> Information is not the same as concepts.

"Information" is a concept.

> information has a very specific meaning and a unit of
> measurement, bits.

Yes, this is how the concept in a particular field is defined.

>>>  To have real world effects a meme has to be in a
> > > brain.
> >
> >Or media - right?
>

> No.  A meme on paper has no real world effects until it is read and in a 
brain.

But it is still a meme where-ever it is.

Once it is in a brain, presumably it has no real effects until a
person acts on it?

But then, that would not be an idea (meme) but an action. Presumably,
actions are memes because they impart information? (e.g. my
beneficient smile?) So any human movement is a meme (not only do they
imitate other  movements, but they impart information)?

Excuse my silly questions, but I am going somewhere with them.

> Minds run in brains like operating systems and application software runs in
> computers.

Yes, I already understood that this was your analogy. Unfortunately,
it is another poor one (though very popular) - and a different
thread...

> Meme is just another word for idea.  As for the rest, I am not even going
> to look at it.

"Meme" as a concept is more than "idea" as a concept - it is not just
a re-labelling, but an attempt at - as you say - understanding
evolutionary psychology.

Anthony

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28444