Their plans are based on the idea of memes. Memes, for those who don’t already know, were first suggested by Richard Dawkins years ago. It is a thought or idea that infects people like a virus. A succesful meme (like religious ones) can bring together people and form a type of superorganism. When 2 superorganisms driven by competeing memes clash, the result is often brutal conflict. Howard Bloom wrote a book caled “The Lucifer Principal” which tried to explain evil biologically. It is a fascinating read, and I highly suggest it to anyone interested in complex social interaction.
The idea for the Church of the Virus is as follows:
Destruction of the old memes by the introductions of better ones. Darwinism extended to the world of the mind, the realm of thought.
I think there is an interesting discussion to be had here. I’ve got to run for a bit, but I have more to say about these guys. Hopefully some responses will send me down a path which helps me to further explain why I am such a fan of this mission and these theories.
Check out the book by Susan Blackmore on memetics. It’s a very good intro to the whole subject. She takes up the subject where Dawkins left off, and explores the whole subject in a most illuminating manner, all the while acknowledging that the very notion of ‘memes’ and ‘memetics’ is essentially speculative and may not have any real substance. In a sense, what she’s getting at is that if the idea of ‘memes’ catches on and propagates itself, then ‘memes’ will be a valid field of study. If not, then they won’t!
I highly recommend one of the books on their fiction list: Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash.
I wonder how people’s view of various things affect their society. E.g., Egyptians (and others) once thought their Kings as Gods and such. Just 150 years ago most people in the US thought rainbows were divinely created. How different is the world view of someone who thinks mundane things are miracles from me and from someone 150 years from now.
But I think the “meme” crowd are mainly word twisters with no real interest in Science.
Memes are an interesting idea, but what I’ve read makes them sound dangerously close to junk science. But the field definitely has potential. I think I will check out Blackmore’s book.
First off, I have been saying it wrong. It is properly called “Church of Virus”. No “the” in there. It can convieninetly be abbreviated as CoV, and that is what I will refer to it as from here on out.
The first thing I always say to someone after I explain memes (assuming they did not know what they are), is that I just transfered (infected) the meme of memes to them. It’s a pretty basic example. Were the laws of physics there before we found and described them? Yes (some really great debate has been done in this area). Thusly, memes are there even if we don’t name or recognise them. I’m convinced based on what I have read that this is a very real and very usefull way of looking at the transfer of thoughts and ideas, as well as the macro results of such interaction.
Maybe. Maybe not. Before we can answer the question “Are they supposed to be actual biological organisms” we need to define what a biological organism is. It is not easy, as Cecil’s article on the definition of life illustrates. Memes use genetic code, that of the hosts they reside in. They can reproduce, they can die, and they can try to eliminate competing memes. Like we use the oxygen from plants and the whole biosphere for our livelihood, memes use our mind and bodies as it’s biosphere. It’s physical nature is the arrangement of brain cells required for it’s existence. It is propagated through either written or spoken words (intellectual sperm!). I’m not so sure that the new breed of memetic sciences really look at memes as metaphor. This may be a tricky position to defend, but I’ll give it a try.
I must disagree whole-heartedly. A tremendous amount of research and thought has gone into these theories by minds far greater than mine. They present a theory, offer proof, and submit their work into the public welcoming debate and criticism. It’s science as it should be.
What have you read that leads you to draw such a conclusion? What is the difference between science and junk science (we need definitions to be able to decide if it is or not)?
This is very real and very exciting science as best as I can tell. Let me provide some links so that everyone can make an informed decision based on the actual work that is going on these days, rather than basing the decision on whether you like the definition of memes. Some folks have offered up some very real-world proof, and their observations are incredible as far as I am concerned:
Howard Bloom
This man is a genius. His work in the field is revolutionary. His book The Lucifer Principal is probably the greatest non fiction book I have ever read:
If you think you understand memetics, odds are you haven’t even scratched the surface if you haven’t read Bloom. His grasp of all of the scientific disciplines is truly staggering. Some of what peole have said about Bloom:
He also started The International Paleopsychology Project. Here is an interesting interview. This guy is a genius. Check him out. Finally, here is an interesting little blurb about his theories. I just like that one. If anyone points out these are just theories, I’m gonna smack them. I understand they are theories. They are damn good ones, but more work remains to be done in wide array of fields (most importantly neuro-science) before these issues are resolved.
Richard Dawkins
Originator of the concept of memes. Try a google search and be sure to read his essay Viruses of the mind. Naturally, if you haven’t already, you will want to read his brilliant book The Selfish Gene.
Please have a look. I think it is fairly obvious that this is a legitimate and insiteful realm of scientific inquiry. They really seem to be onto something here.
Well my meme is bigger and stronger than yours. We (us) will crush your (them) petty thought with the stregnth and integrity of our meme.
I believe we can all agree that all physical organisms have mass. Oxygen, and even fire, also have mass. Do memes have mass? And if so, what is it?
If you want to call brain cells “memes”, that’s fine. Doesn’t change a thing.
Memes are made up of humans and energy. Both of which have mass. A meme can’t exist without a human, so a prerequisite for a meme is something which has mass. Memes have mass.
If you want to call “humans” a semi-stable relationship between disparate molecules, that’s fine. Doesn’t change a thing.
Memes are biological in as much as you are a materialist and not a dualist. Memes are spiritual in as much as you are a dualist and not a materialst. In either case, memes are pretty much atomic or composite ideas that compete for space inside of our consciousness.
Probably the same amount of space in cubic centimeters there is for 1.5V in a AA battery. Really, that’s a bogus question, and nonsensical to the idea of memes. However our consciousness forms and maintains ideas, that is where memes lie.
If I understand it correctly, memes are analogous to genes; it has been said that organisms are just DNA’s way of making more DNA (and spreading it about) Memes would be mental patterns that exploit organisms (humans) to make copies of themselves and become distributed.
I have wondered about this quite a lot; would it be possible for parasitic thought patterns to be independently sentient?
Oooh! Big difference indeed! I see what you mean. We’re not talking about a bunch of introverted mongrels talking nonsensical hokus-pokus but white-clad intelligent beings who know what they’re really going on about. Ahh. Science, the great master plan…
Ever heard about the philosophy of science??? Without ways of interpreting data, science would be about as interesting as my ear wax is to the common garden zwerg!!!
As an interesting philosophical exercise, dalovindj, have you had time to wonder if all of the stuff that’s on those sites you linked is also just a meme.
For the record and without connection to the above, I found what I percieved to be a feeling of ‘agenda’ on reading some of it.
