you got it suprpsingly well.
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
Easy enough to explain they both host a fairly common meme that helps enforce their respective cultural memes. Call it nationalims or patriotism or just traditionalism. Such a meme helps lend a certain stability to the larger meme environment. What explination would you offer that the French and Germans have developed different genetic predilections such an explination borders on the racist.
Thats like saying the same environement in nature should have produced exactly the same kind of animals. And of course these arent the same type of meme enviornoments every human acquires a variety of memes in their life which alters their meme-preferences. I’m not saying their arent objective ways of measuring certain types of memes but to the memes themselves all that matters is which survives.
Thats to be expected. People are at least as (and doubtlessly more) dynamically affected by memes then the external environment is. A new meme infects you (eg mormonism) and suddenly other old memes get shoved aside (boozin’). You forget about an old meme and then it re-infects you.
Correct. Except “Personal traits, unique experiences, and cultural influences” are all memes or meme influenced.
Rascist? I admit that I haven’t read up on my “Meme Theory”, but I do know that to be guilty of racism you have to be talking about more than one race. Since the majority of French and German citizens are caucasian I don’t see how you can accuse me of flirting with racism. In fact, my point in using those two nationalities was to eliminate any ethnic variable from the argument. In any event, I don’t see how you addressed my point. If memes are biological in nature, then they should override cultural influence. If they don’t then how can you say they do anything important?
My main point is this. You, in an earlier post, suggested that you cared about the scientific method. The scientific method is based upon observation, hypothesis, and experiment. Where is the hard data to indicate that these things called memes exist? What controlled experiment has indicated that they are actual, physical things? Where is your Mendel? I understand that not all truths can be arrived at through empiricism, but you are the one who insists on invoking accepted scientific principles (i.e. natural selection).
Ultimately, it comes down to this. You (or the Meme-believing people) have offered a view of the human mind that is one of the following:
Radically different from the our previous understanding of how the mind, consciousness, and decision-making works. If this is the case, then the burden of proof rests with you and those who support the meme view. You can’t just say “I believe this to be true even though we don’t have real evidence for it”. And you can’t just keep defining the arguments within the framework of meme-jargon. To do so is the worst kind of circular reasoning and equivocation. It is as if you are saying “It makes perfect sense that lead can be transformed into gold, and just because the scientific community hasn’t figured it out yet is no reason not to believe that it can’t be done.” Your “truth-through-reason” approach is a Platonic one, and therefore, anti-empirical by its very nature.
OR
Not radically different from our previous understanding of how the mind, consciousness, and decision-making works. This is, in fact, my contention and has been since my first post when I suggested that memes were, in fact, the same thing as ideas.
I remember many years ago, freshman year in college, when I first heard about Abraham Maslow and his theory of Need Hierarchy Motives, which he used to explain why some people were driven to achieve and others were not. I recall being really impressed by the theory, and I recall thinking that Maslow had hit upon something almost cosmic in regard to the nature of human beings. Years later I realized that the thrust of what he said was all pretty obvious, and, in fact, well-known as a sort of “common-sense” understanding of the human qualities of laziness and industry. It was the way he framed it that made it seem original. Freud, on the other hand, understood that our past experiences could mess up our minds for good even if we didn’t really remember what had happened to us. This truly was a new concept in the late 18th century, and THAT was something worthy of note. Perhaps this is what you and I (and, it seems, some of the other people who have responded to your posts) have been arguing about. What concepts are truly revolutionary, and what are just old ideas dressed up with very dense academic jargon?
I think you are still confused as to the difference between evolution as a phenomenon and natural selection as a mechanism. And by the difference between molecular evolution and gene selection. Primordial genetic molecules were most likely self-contained, self-replicating systems. However, once those molecules formed themselves into genes, which I remind you actually code for specific proteins - that is, they do not exist as self-contained entities; there are no free-floating Hox genes out there - they ceased to evolve in the sense of biological evolution, and, indeed, became the drivers for higher level evolution. Recall that a standard definition of evolution is “change in allele frequencies over time” (though even this is challenged by many - see link below) - in the extreme-reductionist view, genes define evolution, but even there, they, themselves, are not what evolves. It is variation in these genes that provides the material which natural selection acts upon at the organismal level.
Here you continue to exhibit confusion over the differences between “natural selection” and “evolution”. Once again, the two are not equivalent terms. Natural selection is one mechanism of evolution, and the primary one in Darwin’s view. Other mechanisms include sexual selection and genetic drift. Even artifical selection can be viewed as a mechanism for evolution. Biological evolution is the result of the interaction of these various forms of selection (and even purely stochastic mechanisms such as genetic drift).
And your last sentence does not follow at all from anything I have said. Once again: I assert that cultural evolution is rooted in genetic evolution (as it must be, since it is our brains that make it possible), but once brains become complex enough, complex thoughts (remember those emergent properties I mentioned?) become possible, and once enough complex thoughts begin interacting (multiple individuals thinking multiple complex thoughts), you get another emergent property: culture. Those emergent properties - complex thoughts and culture - transcend “normal” genetic evolution, and begin to undergo changes which are quite separated from their deep genetic roots. (The popularity of hip-hop, for example, has little, if anything, to do with genetics.) As such, the spread of those cultural ideas has nothing to do with natural selection. This is not to say that selection of ideas does not occur, but that the selection is of another form, more akin to artificial selection in mechanism than anything else.
Where did I say genes are not subject to natural selection?! I said genes do not evolve. Again, I implore you, note the distinction between those two ideas!
They ARE cultural influence thats the whole point. I was not meaning to suggest that you had said anything racist merely that the only alternative explanation for cultural differences that i could see was genetic, which would imply they were different races. Races in real life are of course not genetic things at all but social constructs you can draw the line wherever you want but if one was to say that the french and germans act differently because of genetics it implies they are of different races and racism is but a step away.
There is plenty of empirical data. I offer the following 3 emprical assertions I feel lead to memetics (this is just my list Dawkins, Blackmoore et all prolly have a better one). #1 The selfish gene theory specifically what it says about the gene being the basic unit of natural selection. #2 A rough idea about how fast genetic evolution takes place (ie slowly) #3 A rough idea how fast cultural evolution happens (ie quickly). These are all subject to scientific debate indeed everyone of them has been challeneged in this board but if they are true I find Meme theory is the best explanation for the contradiction arising between #2 and #3.
My reason for supporting is a contradiction in the understanding of evolution namely that our culture evolves faster then genetic evolution should allow. Memetics may be radically different but if it offers a better explanation then simply genetic evolution it must be accepted. By the by people who look for empirical evidence do not then abandon reason, thats just silly.
What jargon? I don’t think I’ve been using much jargon. Maybe a little when we got into talking about selfish gene theory but thats really a side issue.
OK. I don’t know why, but I’m going to try this one more time.
MAIN IDEA: A thought (meme) is NOT a thing (gene).
Now, a thought might seem like a thing, or a thought might be said to “be” a thing–in some certain sense. But it is NOT an actual, particular thing.
A thing (brain/T.V. set) can assemble input (perception/signal) and use it to project a thought (meme/Simpsons episode). But that does not mean that a thought (meme/Simpsons episode) is a thing.
We could dissect our T.V. for the next million years and never find Bart Simpson. We will never find “Gone with the Wind” in the molecules of our movie projector or DVD player. We will never find “Abbey Road” in the molecules of our CD player or radio. (And those are not even very good analogies, because those machines are nothing like the brain.) I quoted Dr. Ratey about bananas only “being” in the brain as a result of similarities and metaphors for a reason: we will never find even 2nd-level abstractions like “purple” “in” our brain—not even in the sense that we might find a word on our computer hard drive as a series of ones and zeros. It’s nothing like that. Nothing like that at all.
Now you and I may have good reason to borrow any number of metaphors in order to explain our ideas, including memes. But history teaches us that science (and progress in general) is severely retarded when scholars fail to distinguish between the metaphor and the fact the metaphor was intended to represent.
TMW, memes is pseudoscience, not science. Because (as I felt compelled to point out in my previous posts) a thought (meme) is NOT a thing (gene). It just isn’t. Sorry. It is what it is. If we want to pursue pseudoscience, fine; we can read and argue about memes. Let’s just not call it “science.” For genuine science, I respectfully suggest we put down the meme books and try most anything by Feynman, esp. The Character of Physical Law, The Meaning of It All, Surely You’re Joking Mr. Feynman!, or The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. I think we live in an unscientific age in which ALMOST ALL the buffeting of communications and television, books, and so on are unscientific. That doesn’t mean they are bad, but they are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.”
I wish you the very best. Now you may have the last word.
I think your the ones whose mixed up ofcourse genes kept evolving do you rrally think the genes in your skin are the same ones that first crawled out of the primordial ooze? Gene selection is the fundamental process of natural selection. The Gene’s that pick up better coding tricks win and get passed on (sound familiar yet?). The organism and the species gives the outwards signs of benefitting from this evolution but the necessarry changes all happen on the genetic level.
Your view does not correspond to reality. How for instance could you explain the presence of lethal genes in the gene pool? Hemophelia presumably benefits no animal but the genes for it are still able to survive in a large gene pool because they don’t kill off most of their hosts.
Well this, I think, is the meat of the argument. I do not think evolution and natural selection are the same thing but I do not think evolution can happen (or at any rate ever has happened) without natural selection. You think artificial selection will explain this but this is silly because humans are part of the natural world anything they do it is natural. So when humans decide whether or not to pass on an idea they are perfroming a type of natural selection. Now the results of that selection evolve so much faster that they cannot be explained by genetic evolution hence the new term memetic. By the by sexual selection and memetic drift are not different kinds of evolution they are all part of the same wonderful natural selection/genetic evolution process.
Gosh your almost at memetics and you don’t even realize it. From what I’m reading seems the only difference between you and I aside from your curious ideas about genetics is that you think calling human choices artifical selection makes them somehow different. Humans are natural, often times it is useful to distinguigh what humans do from what the rest of nature does so we made up the term artificial but it has no actual meaningful difference when it comes to life.
Nothing written by one guy is gonna tell you the scientific concencus. Cecil at least is a fairly neutral party who uusually tellls it like it is. Anyway I support Dawkin’s theory whatever the scientific concencus.
ok even if you don’t believe that all evolution comes form natural selection unless you’re a creationist you have to aknowledge that all natural selection leads to evolution. Again I say just to be clear natural selection is not the same thing is evolution it is its precursor.
Simpsons episodes dont exist anywhere? Funny I though they were made of video and audio tracks. I’ll say this again cause your whole arguments seems to be a bout this one silly notion. Thoughts must have some physical basis or else you wouldn’t be able to have them or talk about them. Just like the simpsons episode has a physical basis. So when I talk about memes I’m talking about their video/audio tape equivalent.
That’s because bart simpson is broadcast into your tv. Oh no! are your thoughts being broadcast in???
Oh tehir bad analogies for much more then that. If you have the DVD of Gone with the wind you will find it same goes for the cd. Maybe your brain is “read only” but I like to think mines stores information as well.
I don’t pretend to know how their there. Ideas can be spread out and still be in the brain. That does not mean their still not part of the mix and non-corporeal.
Uh…no. A gene is not an entity unto itself, it is a substring of DNA which codes for specific proteins. Genes are selected upon, they do not evolve.
Uh…no. Organism selection is the fundemental process of natural selection. When an organism live or dies, it carries all of its genes with it. No gene has control over whether it, itself, survives in exclusion of any other gene. Again, they do not exist as separate, self-contained entities which can be selected for individually - they are part of a complete package, and that package is the organism.
Perhaps you need a refresher course in Mendelian genetics. Heophelia survives because it is a recessive gene - hemophelia only manifests when two alleles of the recessive gene are present. If only one allele is present, it causes no harm at all to the indivudal carrying it.
Furthermore, you make the mistake of assuming that everything must necesarily be beneficial to an organism in order to persist - a false assumption. It need only not be detrimental for it to persist. If it is beneficial, however, the trait will tend to become more prevalent.
Uh…no. Now you’re making up your own definitions. Artificial selection is termed artificial, not just because humans do it, but because the selection is done for reasons which are most beneficial to those doing the selecting. Natural selection is a mindless, directionless force. Artificial selection is both mindful and directed. These are key differences, and the resulting differences in process, and effect, have nothing to do with humans being “part of the natural world”.
Except, of course, that you continue to conflate the analogy with the process. Cultural evolution is akin to, analgous to, like biological evolution in same ways. Cultural evolution, however, is not biological evolution. It is evolution only in the vernacular sense of “change”, not in the strict scientific definition as applied to living things. Memes are not alive.
I am well aware of where I am. And it ain’t at memetics. As I have satted already numerous times, I do not object to the idea that ideas are transmitted from person to person, from generation to generation. I stated as much from the beginning, and also stated that as such, “memes as ideas which are transmitted and transformed” is both obvious and unrevolutionary. What I object to is the equivocation of memes to genes, and your continual instance that memes operate under the laws of natural selection.
Uh…no. See above.
You realize that that makes you sound like an idealogue, right? By your same reasoning, nothing written by Dawkins is gonna tell you scientific consensus, so why should you listen to him? It is ridiculous to claim that just because it was “written by one guy”, it does not represent scientifc consensus.
It is not its precursor, it is its primary mechanism. It is how evolution happens.
Glad to see that I’m not the only person here who has a problem with making up definitions and blatant equivocation. This was a fun little thread, but something tells me that we were trying to hold a legitimate discussion with a person who sees such debates not as a search for truth but rather as an exercise in competitive rhetoric.
Saturday night. Time we all went out and left our memes (if they were real) at home.
Genes do evolve they change over time in a manner that allows more of them to survive. Lets go to the dictionary on this Evolve: to change over time through gradual or abrubt modifications. Is your position so detached form reality that you think genes don’t change over time. I am well aware that genes are but a part of DNA and that the process of sexual re-production splits them up in strange ways that does not mean we cannot think of them individually. In fact as Dawkin’s points out the only way natural selection makes sense is to think of genes as individual entities looking out for their own survival.
When it reproduces though it only gets to give away half its genes. Genes are competing directly against each other in the larger gene pool. After a certain amount of generations a an anmial may be a direct discendant of another anmial and still share none of the same genes.
You have the same misconceptions about genes as memes. Genes are routinely broken up and reassembled it just takes one more generation. Organisms die within a few decades genes can remain unchanged for much longer. Organisms in the final analysis are just the testing ground for memes.
Did you even read what i wrote? I said it survives by not killing most of its hosts. The surprise is that it survives at all. Organisms are the only thing that evolves in your view so how did an organism evolve something that would kill it?
No you make the mistake in ignoring that detrimental traits to persist. Lethal genes survive by spreading faster then they kill their hosts. We both understand how this happens but you fail to see that your view of organism level evolution is irreconcilable with it.
The mindfulness occassionally (but not always) present in human choices to transmit knowledge does not alter the fundamental process of selection. If we continue to breed dogs for millions of years and eventually their genes actually mutate under our domestication would you doubt that they have evolvedor claim that that evolution was a fundamnetally different process.
no memetic evolution is analagous to organic evolution it is a kind of biological evolutuion.
The big difference between our positions is that you think artificial selection is somehow meaningfully different from natural selection. I consider the workings of the mind to be a natural process and so your artifical selection is my natural selection. You say artificial selection is directed as if direction never happens in the organic world. If an owl eats poorly camoflaged mice the owl was applying its direction to genes of those mice. The same happens when one idea is transmitted at the expense of another. You don’t think owls can have direction, fine. A hunter applies directed action against poorly camoflaged ducks by shooting them.
All I’m saying is scientific concensus is difficult to guage if that makes me an idealogue… well it doesn’t. Dawkins never claimed his own theory was scientifi concensus (that’d be a might immodest) Cecil did. I am not beholden to scientific concencus though, I weighed the ideas myself and the selfish gene theory offers the best explanation for the process.
Agreed. Of course that what I meant by precursor sorry if my language was not emphatic enough for you. Now if only you’d realize that evidence of evolution therefore implies the presence of natural selection.
The “[etc.]” being various problems associated with so-called “altruistic behaviors” (starting with the assumption that such behaviors are entirely genetic in nature). Selfish-gene theory was developed specifically to explain such phenomena, and has little utility in explaining non-altruistic behaviors, or non-behavioristic mophological traits. As such, it may work to explain a subset of evolutionary problems, but is hardly sufficient, or necessary, to account for the bulk of them.
Even within the realm of altruistic behaviors, a “selfish gene” does not necessarily explain anything. Consider the example given in the above article, of the bird’s warning call. To argue that the warning behavior is dictated by a “selfish gene”, which ensures its survival by sacrificing one organism for the benefit of the others, is to overlook that the same result would likey have occurred without the warning call – a member of the flock would still have been attacked by the predator, and the attack itself would have likely alerted the flock, which would still result in the rest of the flock taking flight to avoid the predator. Net result: one lost bird, and the rest of the flock survives, regardless of whether the altruistic behavior is present or not. In the latter case, no altruistic, or even selfish, gene is necessary.
Such explanations also overlook reasonable explanations which still rely on individual competition: issuing a warning call urges the flock to take flight, at which point it becomes virtually impossible for a predator to pick out any specific individual. It then becomes a simple matter of luck, rather than design or wile on the part of the predator, for the warner to fall prey - unlike the case where no call is issued and that same individual has a much greater chance of being stalked and falling prey. In an attempt to save his own skin, the individual who warns the flock also saves the skins of his flockmates.
Dictionary definitions prove nothing, as I would think you’d know. Let’s go to the dictionary again, shall we? Specifically, Merriam-Webster:
Note Definition #1. Has nothing at all to do with biological evolution, now does it? Yet, it’s a perfectly valid definition of “evolve”. Picking and choosing definitions does not win your case.
The standard definitions of biological evolution use genes as the baseline for determining when evolution has occurred. Their relative frequencies in a population determine the evolution of a population. Even if the gene changes slightly, but produces the same phenotypic effect, no evolution can be said to occur, because there is no noticable difference in the population. There is a great deal more to biological evolution than just “change through time”.
Nonsense. Natural selection makes perfect sense without even knowing genes exist! As I pointed out in the above post, it is quite possible to “make sense” of natural selection without treating genes, much less selfish genes, as individuals at all. Dawkins himself has stated that selection need not apply only to genes, so I’m not sure why you’ve latched onto that idea.
Genes can only “compete”, in any sense of the word, with their own alleles. And your claim in that last sentence is demonstrably false. I ask you to identify but one instance wherein an ancestor and a direct descendent (no matter how many generations removed) do not share a significant number of genes, much less share none of the same genes.
I’m afraid I have to ask you the same question. Because I have stated, many times, that organisms do not evolve. Please do not make comments on my “view” if you are not even listening when I tell you what my view is!
And the surprise is not “that it [hemophilia] survives at all” - because, as I also said, all that is needed for a gene to survive is precisely that it doesn’t kill the individual carrying it. That’s why we still have, you know, carriers of diseases. It’s only fatal in combination with the same allele, so it persists because odds are it won’t be combined with the same allele often enough for it to be a problem to the species as a whole. And if it does, then it gets weeded out.
I’m not sure where you are getting these ideas, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to call you on your sources for this bit of nonsense: cite?
There is a fundamental disconnect somewhere in your understanding of how evolution, and its mechanisms, operate, and I’m not sure quite where it is. That “[t]heir genes actually mutate” is to be expected: that’s what “variation” is! No copy is perfect, so each generation’s “version” of DNA will be slightly different. Thias produces offspring that are not identical to their parents. It is this very fact that allows selection to occur in the first place, as if all individuals were identical, there would be no criteria to select for. The difference is, as I have already stated, how this selection occurs. We are guiding - directing - the evolution of domesticated animals and plants. That is artifical selection, regardless what connotations you ascribe to the term “artificial”.
And that is entirely because it is different.
You are obviously not reading what I write. Or you are simply ignoring it - I’m not sure which. I’ve tried to explain the differences between artificial and natural selection, but it doesn’t seem to be sinking in. As such, I’m afraid I’m going to have to bow out of this discussion; I’m not sure anything new is being said by either one of us in this thread, anyways. Since we’re at the “hash and rehash” point, I’m going to have to do as clarkc has done, and allow you the last word.
One can have a thought or idea and never externalize it. This is not a meme: a meme is the result of a shared expression or idea.
Ideas may alter behavioral patterns via meme fortification or decay, and manifest themselves via this, but are not considered memetic until someone imitates or embodies this underlying structure in their own behaviors.
For example: I am an “x” person, where “x” is an idea. This causes me to make behavior “y”. Someone picks up behavior “y” and imitates it. Behavior “y” is a meme. This does not make them an “x” person, yet. So, being an “x” person is a single idea and may never transmit, making it isolated from the meme pool.
It’s really quite simple, but it does lead into the discussion regarding free will. Free will cannot exist if we fully realize the notion of memes and mimesis. Sure, we make decisions, we execute choices and display tastes and uniqueness… but if we come to terms with the idea that the universe is all an interconnected cause and effect equation, all of our ideas and memes add up to a single answer for each situation: bye bye free will.
We’re all Fantastic Memory Meat, choices are results…
This thread about memes reminded me of a hilarious short story by Terry Bisson. *“They’re Made out of Meat” * features two alien robots have an dialog about the impossibility of ‘sentient meat’. It starts off like this …
It would be nice if Cecil would every once in a while take a step away from his own ontological views and recognize that other ideas concerning these ideas exist. I am not asking for a dissertation covering all objections but . . . we don’t have a mind!? Some of us believe that we are only mind – that matter is a construction of mind (using language) – that only mind exists. (Yes I am one of those archaic (advanced?) sort of people). It is a bit intellectually dishonest to just dismiss dualism and immaterialism in favor of exclusive materialism. One can argue for all three views (and some others) convincingly. The nature of existence (including ours) has not been solved as easily as Cecil assumes.
I choose to deal with the idea of memes by an extremely simple construct from set theory. There are dittoheads and there are those of us with natural and nurtured immunological defenses against this affliction. These sets do not intersect, though they collide with distressing regularity.
Memes are so close to inimical intellectual viruses that constant vigilance is required to ward off mutations. The etherworld-spawned meme meme is the most dangerous evolutionary development to date; its particularly gruesome outward symptom is the manque manque, the hideous manifestation of the paradigm paradigm.
I thank God for my innoculation in Jesuit school, and if you insist that that’s a meme, I’ll assume my violence manque paradigm meme and punch your gd lights out.
The whole concept of memes is a useful tool for indulging intellectual sloth while looking cool on the Ickey KausFile (a teeming source of infection). The single benefit from this idiotic icon of junk psychology is the peripheral cultural phenomenon of the Borg and its ethereal apotheosis, Seven of Nine.
One of the reasons we should be entitled to believe such a ridiculous idea is that, well, it “works.” Believing we are self-aware creatures etc. gives us a motiviation to keep on being that way, a foundation for living together in human society and a feeling – even if it’s really an illusion – of our own autonomy. That is the heart and, so to speak, soul of Pragmatism.
No Pragmatist philosopher is likely to grumble at such a statement; in fact, it’s a good summation of a long line of thinking beginning with William James and continuing through Thomas Dewey, Sidney Hook and (in our own day) Richard Rorty and others.
Note that under Pragmatism every individual has an equal right to believe that he or she is what he or she seems to his or herself to be, which means that to a certain extent we must credit the belief of the lunatic who claims she wrote Shakespeare’s plays, or of the president who believes he knows how to make the world a more peaceful place for us, as long as those beliefs “work” for them and pose no particular problems for anyone else.
