# Memes **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [February 13, 2004, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036 "2004-02-13T14:56:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036/61 "2004-02-18T06:22:21Z")
> [@TheMemeWarrior](#): > > Sigh you’re gonna make me go to the library over this? Yes, I’m afraid so. Some sample definitions, none of which indicate the word is applicable to just any old thought: From Here: > [@](#): > > An idea considered as a {replicator}, esp. with the connotation that memes parasitize people into propagating them much as viruses do. Used esp. in the phrase `meme complex' denoting a group of mutually supporting memes that form an organized belief system, such as a religion. This lexicon is an (epidemiological) vector of the `hacker subculture’ meme complex; each entry might be considered a meme. However, `meme' is often misused to mean `meme complex’. Use of the term connotes acceptance of the idea that in humans (and presumably other tool- and language-using sophonts) cultural evolution by selection of adaptive ideas has superseded biological evolution by selection of hereditary traits. Hackers find this idea congenial for tolerably obvious reasons. From [Here](http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci212545,00.html): > [@](#): > > A meme is an idea that is passed on from one human generation to another. It’s the cultural equivalent of a gene, the basic element of biological inheritance. The term was coined in 1976 by Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene. Dawkins speculated that human beings have an adaptive mechanism that other species don’t have. In addition to genetic inheritance with its possibilities and limitations, humans, said Dawkins, can pass their ideas from one generation to the next, allowing them to surmount challenges more flexibly and more quickly than through the longer process of genetic adaptation and selection. From [Ms. Blackmore herself](http://jom-emit.cfpm.org/1998/vol2/blackmore_s.html): > [@](#): > > There are many ways of defining the meme but there are two that we should perhaps take particularly seriously. First, Dawkins, who coined the term meme, described memes as units of cultural transmission which “propagate themselves in the meme pool by … a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation” (Dawkins, 1976 p 192). Second, the Oxford English Dictionary defines a meme as follows: “meme (mi:m), n. Biol. (shortened from mimeme … that which is imitated, after GENE n.). An element of a culture that may be considered to be passed on by non-genetic means, esp. imitation”. Both these definitions include the critical point that memes are cultural information that is copied, and that it is copied by imitation. And, perhaps most importantly, from that same link: > [@](#): > > Gabora goes even further and includes ideas, perceptions, emotions, attitudes, and indeed “anything that can be the subject of an instant of experience”. According to this broadest definition a garden frog would have a mass of memes (even though it is totally incapable of imitation or any kind of culture) because it has perceptions and emotions, and is capable of many kinds of learning. > > I shall argue that these broader definitions are deeply confusing. They take away the idea of the meme as a replicator (which was the original reason for its invention, and provides its context within evolutionary theory), ignore the idea that memes must be passed on by some kind of copying, and merely add confusion to the already difficult problem of understanding consciousness. I suggest we are better to stick to the original definition of the meme as transmitted by imitation. I will add that _these_ versions of “meme” I have no philosophical problems with. What I do object to is _your_ defintions and characterizations of memes. I think you are, perhaps, reading too much into the nature and intent of these buggers. They can exists and survive, and even fluorish, without being subject to strict Darwinian natural selection. My own personal “theory” (if you can call it that) is that cultural evolution is more akin to _artificial_ selection than natural selection. We pick and choose which ideas we wish to pass on to future generations, or which cultural “traits” we want to persist. > [@](#): > > easily solved by the introduction of the memeplex. I know you would prefer a less sophisticated version of memetics to argue against hence your reluctance to argue against anything but this strawman version of memetics you’ve devised. Sorry, but I’m arguing against the version you have created. > [@](#): > > the memeplex no more evolves then the organism or the species does, only memes and genes truly evolve the others only benefit from that evolution. A quibble here: genes and organisms do not evolve. Populations of organisms evolve. Species evolve. If we continue the analogy, then, memes do not evolve, either. > [@](#): > > If “priest” and “rabbi” are individual memes (ie they cannot be further deconstructed) then they can be said to have undergone natural selection. They are not competing for laughs as such they are competing for transmission. And in what way does that competition manifest itself? Both can be transmitted just as easily as either one; there is not a limit to “transmission space” which only permits one or the other to persist. > [@](#): > > the two versions are not mutually exclusive mine just gives a better understanding of whats going on. On the contrary, I think yours clouds the issue behind so much jargon, it’s virtually impossible to grasp what is going on! > [@](#): > > Compare these two sentances “the pink worm as caught by the bird because it was less camoflaged then the green worm” and the “The green genes present in the green version of the worm allowed that worm to survive better then the pink genes found in the pink version of the worm.” The second sentance is much more complicated but that does not make it wrong. In fact it makes it a better explanation. Or, better yet, one can say this: “the green worm (which could be green as a result of any number of things, including genetics, diet, or various developmental factors) blends against a leafy background better than does a pink worm. Thus, it is more likely that the pink worm will be spotted by predators (e.g., birds) and eaten.” More complex, certainly, but still easy to understand, and makes no absolute claims as to _why_ the green worm survived - only that it was more difficult to spot, and there are a number of reasons why _that_ might be the case. Now, the above is not meant to nitpick your specific worm example, but rather to nitpick the original explanation, which served to obscure rather than explain. It can later be tested what made the worm green, but I doubt anything you said in your explanation of how a joke might change can be tested. The point here is simply that your version did not explain better than the simple version. > [@](#): > > No you didnt but you and no one else supporting punctuated equillibrium or any other accelrated evolution prgram has offered any real mechansim by which evolution could vastly accelerate itself. [Enjoy!](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=123396) > [@](#): > > No there is very real need to explain why man was able to evolve so well and so quickly. Language, tools, and social organization all contributed to the human domination of the earth, as they of course all benefitied from memetic evolution. That does not explain why we should have evolved so quickly if you are just relying on genetic evolution as your model. I was not relying on “just” genetic evolution. As I stated already, language is a major player. Sure, the _ability_ to create language might be genetic, but what we actually say once we get going is not. Consciousness becomes an emergent property of our complex brains, the whole being greater than the sum of the parts (wherein chaos theory is often invoked as an explanation). And, as I have already stated, I have no problem with the _original_ conception of memes and their means of transmittal, or even their importance in human cultural evolution (and, by implication, our evolution in general). What I object to is the idea that these memes operate under the principals of natural selection (and I do not object to such becaus eit undermines any deep-seated belief about free-will, or genetics, or evolution, or anything like that; I object because they simply do not exhibit the required characteristics for natural selection. Selection certainly occurs; it is not, however, Darwinian natural selection). > [@](#): > > You havent explained cultural evolution you’ve just said it “evolves” when the only kind of evolution you recognize is genetic this makes no sense. Eh? I offered an explanation right here: > [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > We can think thoughts and relate them to others. If it’s a “good idea”, then others will think similar thoughts. We do not have to relearn everything from scratch, we build upon what others before us have learned. Thus, each generation can “evolve”, in a cultural sense, beyond previous generations. ---
**Author:** ![Mathochist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c89c15/32.png) [@Mathochist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mathochist)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036/62 "2004-02-18T06:26:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Memes don’t exist, pass it on… 😉 Of course they exist. They’re infectious virulent things that must be stamped out. (pass it on) ---
**Author:** ![TheMemeWarrior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TheMemeWarrior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheMemeWarrior)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036/63 "2004-02-18T16:49:52Z")
> [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > Memories are not memes. I’d like to see anything from a memeticist that says otherwise. Seems you’ve saved me the trouble of going to the library. Although i never said “any old thought” counts as a meme there are memetecists who would go that far and farther as you accidently pointed out. From your second Blackmoore quote: “Gabora goes even further and includes ideas, perceptions, emotions, attitudes” Liane Gabora therefore is a memeticist who says otherwise. My own definition is closest to your first one where memes are all the ideas that can be transmitted. I suppose one might be able to have a memory you were incapable of transmitting but this seems like a strange sort of thing. > [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > A quibble here: genes and organisms do not evolve. Populations of organisms evolve. Species evolve. If we continue the analogy, then, memes do not evolve, either. Genes evolve thats the whole point of the selfish gene. Organisms and species appear to evolve but they really just benefit from gene evolution. All the actual natural selection takes place on the genetic level > [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > And in what way does that competition manifest itself? Both can be transmitted just as easily as either one; there is not a limit to “transmission space” which only permits one or the other to persist. Well most people dont go around telling two different versions of a joke. Thats just the nature of jokes. > [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > On the contrary, I think yours clouds the issue behind so much jargon, it’s virtually impossible to grasp what is going on! What part do you have trouble grasping? what jargon are you referring to? > [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > Now, the above is not meant to nitpick your specific worm example, but rather to nitpick the original explanation, which served to obscure rather than explain. It can later be tested what made the worm green, but I doubt anything you said in your explanation of how a joke might change can be tested. The point here is simply that your version did not explain better than the simple version. Yes it did. You take genetic testing for granted but a few decades ago this would have been impossible. Would you then assume that an animals colour cshould not be specualted as a genetic explanation? Your stringent standards would ahve never allowed Darwin to come up with his theory of evolution. > [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > I was not relying on “just” genetic evolution. As I stated already, language is a major player. Sure, the _ability_ to create language might be genetic, but what we actually say once we get going is not. Consciousness becomes an emergent property of our complex brains, the whole being greater than the sum of the parts (wherein chaos theory is often invoked as an explanation). No you are still relying on genetic evolution because thats the only type of evolution you offer. You say yourself natural selection only occurs through genetic evolution, or at least it doesnt occur in memetics and i dont see any third alternative. Therefore you must be arguing that cultural evolutuon is due to genetic evolution. Either that or you are arguing that evolution can occur without natural selection or that culture has not evolved? So which is it? > [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > And, as I have already stated, I have no problem with the _original_ conception of memes and their means of transmittal, or even their importance in human cultural evolution (and, by implication, our evolution in general). What I object to is the idea that these memes operate under the principals of natural selection (and I do not object to such becaus eit undermines any deep-seated belief about free-will, or genetics, or evolution, or anything like that; I object because they simply do not exhibit the required characteristics for natural selection. Selection certainly occurs; it is not, however, Darwinian natural selection). Natural selection has always been part of meme theory thats the whole point of the analogy to the gene. > [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > Eh? I offered an explanation right here: Thats not an explination thats a description. You don’t explain how this evolution is possible. ---
**Author:** ![clarkc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@clarkc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clarkc)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036/64 "2004-02-18T17:52:57Z")
> [@TheMemeWarrior](#): > > Memes do have substance and weight. They exist inside human minds. If ideas had no corporeal presence how could you have them? The intracacies of the human mind being what they are I cannot point at any particular part of the brain and call it a meme… It is not hard to imagine though that one day we will see… Whoa, TMW! Good fight, but I think you just took a wrong turn. Be careful using that “e” word (exist). It seems to me that your argument can only be sustained here with the assertion that thoughts/memes/ideas exist DESPITE their lack of corporeal substance (NOT that they “must” possess it). Brain is not mind. Brain is piano; mind is concerto. (Or brain is movie projector; mind is the flickering pattern of light “on” the wall.) There are no concertos inside my piano, but I’m not willing to deny their existence. You ask, “How could I have thoughts/memes/ideas if they had no corporeal presence?” I don’t know. Not in any scientific sense. But I have them anyway. John J. Ratey, M.D., Harvard Medical School, A User’s Guide to the Brain (New York: Pantheon, 2001), page 5: “It is the bane of cognitive scientists that bananas are not located in a single structure of the brain. The brain assembles perceptions by the simultaneous interaction of whole concepts, whole images. Rather than using the predictive logic of a microchip, the brain is an analog processor, meaning, essentially, that it works by analogy and metaphor. It relates whole concepts to one another and looks for similarities, differences, or relationships between them. It does not assemble thoughts and feelings from bits of data.” This error is analogous to Freud’s, who sincerely believed that science would eventually define the exact location and borders of the anatomical structures responsible for ego, id, and superego, and the causes of disease therein, dubbed “neurosis.” Of course, it never happened. Garth Wood, The Myth of Neurosis: “In dignifying the failure to lead a satisfactory life with the descriptive term ‘neurosis,’ a new disease category is created with its own natural history, signs, symptoms and prognosis. This old philosophical mistake of the hypostatization of an abstraction, in which the existence of a word is mistakenly taken to imply the existence of a real entity to which that word describes, leads to the idea that there exist neuroses in the same way that there exist broken legs and heart murmurs. In reality, of course, to behave in a ‘neurotic’ way is not a disease but a misguided decision and such behavior is a function of our basic freedom to choose, of our self-determination, of our responsibility for our own lives.” Best regards, ---
**Author:** ![TheMemeWarrior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TheMemeWarrior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheMemeWarrior)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036/65 "2004-02-18T19:55:48Z")
> [@clarkc](#): > > It seems to me that your argument can only be sustained here with the assertion that thoughts/memes/ideas exist DESPITE their lack of corporeal substance (NOT that they “must” possess it). Brain is not mind. Brain is piano; mind is concerto. (Or brain is movie projector; mind is the flickering pattern of light “on” the wall.) There are no concertos inside my piano, but I’m not willing to deny their existence. You ask, “How could I have thoughts/memes/ideas if they had no corporeal presence?” I don’t know. Not in any scientific sense. But I have them anyway. I think you’ve passed beyond science at some point. There must be some interaction between the mental and physical realm, unless your going to pull a Descartes and pawn it off on God. It doesnt matter whether the Banana is spread out or in one place as long as its somewhere in the grey matter. When you hold an idea in your head something in your brain changes this is all the corporality I require. The full mysteries of the mind have not yet been cracked by a Harvard scientist or anyone else. If they had been one could take a microscope to someones head see how things were interacting and be able to tell what they were thinking. ---
**Author:** ![clarkc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@clarkc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clarkc)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036/66 "2004-02-18T21:38:43Z")
> [@TheMemeWarrior](#): > > I think you’ve passed beyond science…unless you’re going to pull a Descartes and pawn it off on God. Exactly–I/we HAVE passed beyond science. We do that whenever we discuss thoughts, which are not 4 dimensional things. Science requires objects which are inter-subjectively observable, right? No objective observation, no science, right? There is no need to invoke Descartes or God. Scientifically speaking, there should not even BE a mind-body problem. But there is (consider the placebo effect). And after having wrestled with this problem for some 2,000 years, we can only be assured that no easy fix will be found in the laboratory. Science has not “failed,” it is just limited, that’s all. This notion, that the human mind is to be understood ultimately in material terms, is one of the most persistent ideas (memes?) in history, particularly since the 17th century. In my view, one of the best defenses of the materialism thesis appears in JJC Smart’s “Sensations and Brain Processes.” Yet he concludes (and with your “you’ve passed beyond science…,” you might be inclined to agree, as do I) that “there is no conceivable experiment which could decide between materialism and epiphenomenalism.” Well, if there is no conceivable experiment, why should we wait another 2,000 years to find bananas in my neurons? Maybe you think everything should be explainable in terms of physics. I must confess that I clung tightly to that view for many (many) years. But now I can’t conceive of how we will ever find a neuron in possession of a banana, or a glial cell (or combination thereof) revealing my motivations, or some chunk of cortex holding my memories. In Intellectual History of Psychology, Robinson lays out three alternatives for us: 1. Conclude that mind is not in brain and get on with our work; 2. Conclude that mind is brain and live with the maze of logical and methodological traps; or 3. Conclude (with ol’ Gottfried Leibniz) that mind and brain are different and parallel entities, each conforming to its own special essence in a way perfectly correlated with the other. Take your pick, but “everything must be explainable in terms of physics because, well, it just is!” doesn’t make it; you don’t refute an argument just by telling me I’m wrong, right? I know I’ve gone on too long. Hope I’ve given you a little food for thought. Best regards, ---
**Author:** ![TheMemeWarrior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TheMemeWarrior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheMemeWarrior)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036/67 "2004-02-18T22:23:52Z")
> [@clarkc](#): > > Exactly–I/we HAVE passed beyond science. We do that whenever we discuss thoughts, which are not 4 dimensional things. Science requires objects which are inter-subjectively observable, right? No objective observation, no science, right? There is no need to invoke Descartes or God. Scientifically speaking, there should not even BE a mind-body problem. But there is (consider the placebo effect). And after having wrestled with this problem for some 2,000 years, we can only be assured that no easy fix will be found in the laboratory. Science has not “failed,” it is just limited, that’s all. Oooookay we’ve gotten a little far away from memetics. I could dig up my first year philosophy notes and have at this but perhaps this thread isnt the best place. If these extra-corporeal thought things of yours still effect human behavior then there still a part of the physical world which is what I need for memes to be scienitifically studyable. Science is an approach to knowledge and not one that can so easily be forbidden as those who tried to keep science from looking at the skies our life’s origins have inevitably found out. ---
**Author:** ![clarkc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@clarkc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clarkc)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036/68 "2004-02-18T23:08:38Z")
Sometimes the best answer is found by considering the virtues of someone else’s view, not merely hammering away at its vices. Do I see any problems with a modest dualism? Of course. Do you see any problems with materialism? I really tried to put forth a respectful response. But if you are threatening to dig up your first year philosophy notes, well, I guess that’s that. Best regards, ---
**Author:** ![TheMemeWarrior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TheMemeWarrior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheMemeWarrior)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036/69 "2004-02-19T01:27:36Z")
Well first off I’m not sure materialism has much impact on this debate. I have no strict adherence to materialism I do have a strict adherence to the scientific method. Matter and energy have fairly firm perches within the realm of science if some other form had some useful explanatory power that satisfied the scientific method I would have no objection. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036/70 "2004-02-19T01:50:44Z")
> [@TheMemeWarrior](#): > > Genes evolve thats the whole point of the selfish gene. Organisms and species appear to evolve but they really just benefit from gene evolution. All the actual natural selection takes place on the genetic level That would make Dawkins 0 for 2: sorry, but selfish genes and extreme reductionism are both right out. Natural selection most assuredly takes place beyond the gene level (indeed, it operates at several levels - _including_, but not \*exclusively[i/], or even primarily, at the gene level). I could go on here, but this thread is about memes, not selfish genes. I will simply state here that evolution is the product of natural selection, the two are not equivalent terms. One is the mechanism, the other is the phenomenon which the mechanism serves to explain. Even if I were to accept that genes were the primary domain of natural selection, they still do not evolve. Even accepting as I do that natural selection acts primarily upon organisms, I still do not maintain that individuals can, or do, evolve. Evolution is, and always has been, a population-level phenomenon. > [@](#): > > Yes it did. You take genetic testing for granted but a few decades ago this would have been impossible. Would you then assume that an animals colour cshould not be specualted as a genetic explanation? Your stringent standards would ahve never allowed Darwin to come up with his theory of evolution. Nonsense, as evidenced by the mere fact that Darwin _did_ come up with his theory of evolution without knowing anything about genes. He did, however, realize what characteristics the heritable material had to have. Aside from that, however, genes are not the sole factor in determining morphology (including, but not limited to, color). Again, this is a deviation from this thread, but you need simply consider a butterfly and the caterpillar from which it came to realize that there is more to appearance than one’s genes. Would _you_ assume that the butterfly had to undergo some massive genetic alteration in order to pass from one stage to the next? > [@](#): > > No you are still relying on genetic evolution because thats the only type of evolution you offer. You say yourself natural selection only occurs through genetic evolution, or at least it doesnt occur in memetics and i dont see any third alternative. Therefore you must be arguing that cultural evolutuon is due to genetic evolution. Either that or you are arguing that evolution can occur without natural selection or that culture has not evolved? So which is it? How about neither? I am saying the following: 1) the mechanism and process of cultural evolution is _analogous_ to biological evolution in some aspects, but the two are not equivalent. 2) Cultural evolution is, ultimately, the product of genetic evolution as it exists as a result of our evolved brains. 3) The gap between the biological (genes producing complex brains) and the non-biological (culture and all that entails) is largely the result of emergent properties such as consciousness, or even emergent properties of multiple consciousnesses. Once our brains became complex enough, abstract thoughts were possible, and we could then have a greater control over not only our own biological evolution, but cultural evolution becomes possible, and important, as well. That cultural evolution depends, in large part, on our ability to communicate (also a product of biological evolution) and reason (part of the emergent properties). > [@](#): > > Natural selection has always been part of meme theory thats the whole point of the analogy to the gene. It is not, however, part of the established definitions. As I have stated multiple times, I disagree that memes are subject to natural selection, and I disagree with any definition of “meme” that relies on such. Meme as “cultural tidbit that can be copied through imitation”, I have no problem with. Meme as “cultural tidbit that is treated like a parasitic organism and evolves through natural selection”, I have whole heaps of problems with. As I have undoubtedly made clear by now. > [@](#): > > Thats not an explination thats a description. You don’t explain how this evolution is possible. Sure I did: ideas change because we can build upon previous ideas, keeping those aspects we like and discarding those we don’t like. If you want to debate how those ideas are formed in the first place, you should probably ask a psychologist. But naturally-selected memes surely are not a necessary component of that process. ---
**Author:** ![mrsface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a9adbd/32.png) [@mrsface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrsface)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036/71 "2004-02-19T02:50:45Z")
Interesting thread. Can I just thank **Darwin’s Finch** for exposing meme theory (or at least the over-literal interpretations of it) to the light of day - your clear arguments made what had seemed a daunting and foggy concept more accessible - thanks. My problem with the idea (meme?) of the meme is that it seems to lack explanatory power. So ideas are analagous to genes, to viruses, to seeds, so what’s new? How does this advance understanding of the mind? I know I’m oversimplifying but the meme theory seems over-complex without any evidence or testability to justify it. An analogy is not a theory, and the gene/meme analogy seems particularly imprecise because there is nothing that determines whether one meme is fitter to survive and reproduce than another. What is a ‘good’ idea? Anyone who thinks the fittest jokes are the ones that survive should get down to the pub more often. Wouldn’t it be simpler to say that human brains produce ideas, and that some of these ideas become widely communicated through language and technology so that the environment, to which we must adapt, is changed. So culture must have affected evolution of the mind, as it would have introduced a requirement to be flexible. The question of why some ideas seem to catch fire at particular times is an interesting one, but I don’t see that it is helpful to invoke genetic analogies to explain this, rather than historical or social ones. It sounds as if social/cultural theorists want to grab a little of the glamour and prestige they see the bioscientists as enjoying. BTW, I remember hearing about something called ‘morphic resonance’ a decade or so ago - this was a theory that once one person had an idea, it became easier for others to do so. There was, if I remember, some experimental stuff with both people and animals - is anyone taking an interest in this now, or has it been dismissed? ---
**Author:** ![TheMemeWarrior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TheMemeWarrior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheMemeWarrior)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036/72 "2004-02-19T03:31:25Z")
> [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > I will simply state here that evolution is the product of natural selection, the two are not equivalent terms. One is the mechanism, the other is the phenomenon which the mechanism serves to explain. Even if I were to accept that genes were the primary domain of natural selection, they still do not evolve. Even accepting as I do that natural selection acts primarily upon organisms, I still do not maintain that individuals can, or do, evolve. Evolution is, and always has been, a population-level phenomenon. Even those scientists, now in the minority, who maintain evolution occurs on a species level wouldn’t be so myopic as to think it wasn’t still happening on the genetic level. How do you think life even got to the organism stage if genes didn’t evolve? Certainly organisms appear to evolve they after all are the testing ground for the success or failure of genetic variations. Successful genes generally (but not universally) lead to better success in individuals and successful egnes make there way through a co-mating species. > [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > Nonsense, as evidenced by the mere fact that Darwin _did_ come up with his theory of evolution without knowing anything about genes. That’s evidence that Darwin knew what he was talking about not that you do. My point was that your standards of proof for evolution would have ruled out Darwin’s theory until Watson and Crick (who incidentally wouldn’t have known what to look for). > [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > How about neither? I am saying the following: 1) the mechanism and process of cultural evolution is _analogous_ to biological evolution in some aspects, but the two are not equivalent. 2) Cultural evolution is, ultimately, the product of genetic evolution as it exists as a result of our evolved brains. 3) The gap between the biological (genes producing complex brains) and the non-biological (culture and all that entails) is largely the result of emergent properties such as consciousness, or even emergent properties of multiple consciousnesses. Seems more like you want both then neither you’re giving credit everywhere except to memetics even though you recognize only one kind of evolution. As an aside I should point out that I agree with point number 2 with memetics as good a word for cultural evolution. Memetics evolved within genetically evolving creatures but is still a separate type of natural selection as evidenced by the rapid rate which this evolves. You have yourself acknowledged that culture evolves so I think you are faced with a choice if you wish to keep your stance that memetics is not a form of natural selection. Either you assert that culture is wholly due to genetic evolution (ie I evolved a gene which lets me use this computer in the last decade or so) or that you’ve found away for life to evolve without natural selection. > [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > It is not, however, part of the established definitions. As I have stated multiple times, I disagree that memes are subject to natural selection, and I disagree with any definition of “meme” that relies on such. It is part of the established definitions. Dawkins said the meme was analogous to the gene. For Dawkins and the majority of the scientific community (relying on Cecil for that) genes are the established units of natural selection in the biological world. The obvious point of the analogy, well fleshed out by Daniel Dennet, is that the meme is the unit of natural selection in the cultural world. You may think memes being analogous to genes doesn’t mean this because you strangely believe genes aren’t subject to natural selection but do not presume to speak for Dawkins (“established definitions”) when you do so. > [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > Sure I did: ideas change because we can build upon previous ideas, keeping those aspects we like and discarding those we don’t like. I didn’t ask why ideas change i asked how you could justify saying they “evolve”. A seemingly small, but in this instance intrinsically important, distinction. To evolve requires natural selection. Genes the unit of natural selection work to slow to accommodate cultural evolution hence the need to posit a second type of evolution and a second unit of natural selection: the meme. ---
**Author:** ![TheMemeWarrior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TheMemeWarrior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheMemeWarrior)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036/73 "2004-02-19T03:56:45Z")
Look another one came in while I was trying to get my first post to load. > [@mrsface](#): > > My problem with the idea (meme?) of the meme is that it seems to lack explanatory power. So ideas are analagous to genes, to viruses, to seeds, so what’s new? How does this advance understanding of the mind? I know I’m oversimplifying but the meme theory seems over-complex without any evidence or testability to justify it. I don’t find it to complex though studying it certainly is, it is after all a nascent science full of as many crackpots as geniuses. Once you see that ideas meet the criteria for natural selection the so what becomes abundantly clear. Memes are responsible for the rapid evolution of human culture knowing this tells us an immense amount about who we are just like genetic evolution did in Darwin’s day. > [@mrsface](#): > > An analogy is not a theory, and the gene/meme analogy seems particularly imprecise because there is nothing that determines whether one meme is fitter to survive and reproduce than another. What is a ‘good’ idea? Anyone who thinks the fittest jokes are the ones that survive should get down to the pub more often. A “good” idea in this context is precisely the one that gets passed on. This is the acid test for any meme just like being passed on to a new generation is the survival test for a gene. Seemingly the funnier joke has the advantage. Just like in the wild though the sharpest teeth do not always win the day and a meme could be passed on for any number of reasons. > [@mrsface](#): > > Wouldn’t it be simpler to say that human brains produce ideas, and that some of these ideas become widely communicated through language and technology so that the environment, to which we must adapt, is changed. So culture must have affected evolution of the mind, as it would have introduced a requirement to be flexible. Simpler yes, more informative no. Your first sentence here does not explain how our culture was able to seemingly evolve but at rate far outpacing ever before produced by genetic evolution. Your second sentence simply confounds me and I don’t really know what your saying. However I don’t see how culture could affect the very slow genetic evolution of the mind if your talking about anything that has happened in the past couple thousand years. > [@mrsface](#): > > The question of why some ideas seem to catch fire at particular times is an interesting one, but I don’t see that it is helpful to invoke genetic analogies to explain this, rather than historical or social ones. It sounds as if social/cultural theorists want to grab a little of the glamour and prestige they see the bioscientists as enjoying. I think it’s rather the other way around science is encroaching on what used to be purely metaphysical grounds. This isn’t the first time science has done this (eg Darwin, Copernicus). Meme was coined by a scientist, Richard Dawkins, after a break through scientific thinking, the selfish gene theory. > [@mrsface](#): > > BTW, I remember hearing about something called ‘morphic resonance’ a decade or so ago - this was a theory that once one person had an idea, it became easier for others to do so. There was, if I remember, some experimental stuff with both people and animals - is anyone taking an interest in this now, or has it been dismissed? They were actually discussing morphic resonance not too long ago here: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=239934](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=239934) Actually some wished to hang it like the proverbial albatross around the neck of memetics. Though I assure you the two are quite distinct notions. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036/74 "2004-02-19T05:22:10Z")
I think we’re missing the point that "Memes don’t exist, pass it on… " would make a great sig line. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036/75 "2004-02-19T05:27:49Z")
Thanks GIGObuster ---
**Author:** ![mrsface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a9adbd/32.png) [@mrsface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrsface)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036/76 "2004-02-19T12:38:43Z")
> [@TheMemeWarrior](#): > > a meme could be passed on for any number of reasons. Exactly - this is my objection to the theory. A gene, on the other hand, is passed on because it codes for a trait that helps the organism survive in the environment. It is a consistent, measurable mechanism. The reasons why one idea survives while another fades away are so multifarious (historical, social, economic, political, practical etc etc) as to make the analogy with natural selection meaningless IMO. Also, an idea does not code for anything, does it? I suppose you could argue that there is a universal understanding of grammar that codes for language acquisition, but the ability to understand grammar is in the brain, isn’t it, not “out there” floating about in culture? The sentence you say confounds you - very roughly, what I meant was: language and culture evolved because they gave the early human an advantage in survival. But language and culture in turn changed (and continue to change) the environment to which the human must adapt. So there is an interactive relationship between evolution and culture. Thanks for the morphic resonance link ---
**Author:** ![TheMemeWarrior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TheMemeWarrior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheMemeWarrior)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036/77 "2004-02-19T14:22:40Z")
> [@mrsface](#): > > Exactly - this is my objection to the theory. A gene, on the other hand, is passed on because it codes for a trait that helps the organism survive in the environment. It is a consistent, measurable mechanism. So is the meme. It’s consistent measurable mechanism is whether it is passed on to another mind. The reason one idea might survive are indeed multifarious but so are those of a gene. A gene may help an organism to survive in any number of ways just as meme may rely on any number of “good tricks” to allow itself to be passed. > [@mrsface](#): > > Also, an idea does not code for anything, does it? I suppose you could argue that there is a universal understanding of grammar that codes for language acquisition, but the ability to understand grammar is in the brain, isn’t it, not “out there” floating about in culture? the code is the nature of the idea. The idea as you perceive it is the final result of that coding. There is no garantee and no need for the idea to code to anything greater. > [@mrsface](#): > > But language and culture in turn changed (and continue to change) the environment to which the human must adapt. From this you could mean three things 1. language/culture changed but did not evolve 2. language/culture evolved but this evolution was wholly genetic 3. Language/culture evolved in some different way. The first and second possibuilities do not match the evidence. Human civilization has developed with such speed and versimilitude to necessitate being called evolution and yet the only known mechanism of evolution, the gene, does not mutate or reproduce at a rate fast enough to explain how one species could so quickly take over the entire earth. The only explanation left is that a new unit of natural selection entered the scene with our early hominid ancestors. ---
**Author:** ![Jinx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036/78 "2004-02-19T17:06:37Z")
Memes? I don’t buy it, doc! On the macro level of human behavior, I say it is maybe 90% conditioning and modeling from the familiar, daily environment in which we are submersed. That’s why the apple does not usually fall far from the tree, generally. Each individual is a product of his/her environment. Not saying one cannot break out of their mold, but that requires recognition of the complacent and the active thinking about the world around you to wake up and say “Hey, do I have to watch football games every Sunday?” (since sports was used as an example of a meme). There’s no meme virus secretly infecting us! It is dictated by peers, advertising, and lifestyle. You have to have the whitest and brightest…and I can’t get no satisfaction! For the record, I buck the norms. I have never watched a Simpsons episode, I refuse to shop at malls [and overpay], and I don’t care what J. Lo et al. are all doing now in Hollywood…they should only be so worried about me! Could it be that I am meme immune? I doubt it…just a free-thinking person who questions life around himself on a daily basis. And, even if memes exist…you still HAVE a choice! You have the ability to break from the herd. You have a brain to think for yourself! Treat yourself to a first-time experience - shop away from the malls this weekend! Kill a meme! 😉 - Jinx, mostly IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![TheMemeWarrior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TheMemeWarrior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheMemeWarrior)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036/79 "2004-02-19T17:41:27Z")
> [@Jinx](#): > > Memes? I don’t buy it, doc! On the macro level of human behavior, I say it is maybe 90% conditioning and modeling from the familiar, daily environment in which we are submersed. That’s why the apple does not usually fall far from the tree, generally. Each individual is a product of his/her environment. Memes are part of the human environment. A rather huge part in fact. > [@Jinx](#): > > Not saying one cannot break out of their mold, but that requires recognition of the complacent and the active thinking about the world around you to wake up and say “Hey, do I have to watch football games every Sunday?” (since sports was used as an example of a meme). You seem to think memes are only restricted to pop-culture. This is merely a hyper-infectious but, god willing, short lived sub-class of memes. The really powerful and long lived memes are stored up in religion and morals and traditions. This is not to say you can ahve no choice in the matter but your choice is heavily influenced by the memetic programming you’ve received all your life. > [@Jinx](#): > > There’s no meme virus secretly infecting us! It is dictated by peers, advertising, and lifestyle. Peers and advertising are two of the many ways memes transmit themselves. > [@Jinx](#): > > And, even if memes exist…you still HAVE a choice! You have the ability to break from the herd. You have a brain to think for yourself! Treat yourself to a first-time experience - shop away from the malls this weekend! Kill a meme You wouldnt be killing a meme you’d be supporting one namely this anti-mall meme you seem obsessed over. Now I’m not one for conformity but I don’t see much what you think memetics a nascent and extremely controversial field is doing to fuel conformity. Incidently you really should watch the 3rd through sixth seasons of simpsons at the least, very subversive wit. ---
**Author:** ![Billowen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19b73/32.png) [@Billowen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billowen)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036/80 "2004-02-20T02:37:05Z")
Logged on to the message boards tonight just to see what was going on, and was a bit surprised to see this thread was still running. Anyway, Memewarrior, something occurs to me. As I understand it your position is that this thing I call an “idea” (which exists but has no tangible form) is really something called a “meme”. You contend that this “meme” is actually biological and/or physical in nature, and that it works in a manner similar to genes. Am I correct so far? You (or, rather, people like this Dr. Dawkins) also suggest that these memes survive and replicate, or die, based upon how effective, useful, or whatever. Am I still correct? If so, then I am confused. How would you explain the fact that individuals with plenty of opportunity to interact… say… modern Germans and Frenchman, manage to maintain such distinct cultures? Having spent a good amount of time in both nations, I can assure you that this is the case. Why didn’t the French all decide that they really did prefer beer to wine (or vice-versa) and ditch the runny cheese in favor of bratwurst? For that matter, why do young urban Americans enjoy rap, while their rural counterparts (who live maybe twenty miles away and have certainly heard rap) prefer country? Wouldn’t the memes-as-virus/natural selection theory produce similar preferences amonst all those who had been exposed to a meme? If you suggest that one isn’t better than the other, than why do many people express a fondness for one form and detest the other? What about the fact some people change their tastes? How about the fact that we often lose interest in certain activities, and then come back to them later? I say that the answer is simple. We all have individual identities that are a conglomeration of personal traits, unique experiences, and cultural influences. Those things, not some mythical braingene, drive our personalities. The memes don’t eliminate one another because… they don’t exist. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/memes/229036.md?page=5)