Log in

View Full Version : Memes



Umoja
7th July 2004, 20:19
Taken from Anders Transhumanism Page (http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Cultural/Memetics/index.html#THEORY)

Memetics is the study of ideas and concepts viewed as "living" organisms, capable of reproduction and evolution in an "Ideosphere" (similar to the Biosphere) consisting of the collective of human minds. Memes reproduce by spreading to new hosts, who will spread them further (typical examples are jokes, catchphrases or politicial ideas).

At present memetics is somewhat controversial. Partly this is due to misunderstandings about what it means, leading to claims that it excludes human free will, creativity and progress, and that it is bad science. This will likely change in time, as the field matures.

Taken from Viruses of the Mind by Richard Dawkins:

A human child is shaped by evolution to soak up the culture of her people. Most obviously, she learns the essentials of their language in a matter of months. A large dictionary of words to speak, an encyclopedia of information to speak about, complicated syntactic and semantic rules to order the speaking, are all transferred from older brains into hers well before she reaches half her adult size. When you are pre-programmed to absorb useful information at a high rate, it is hard to shut out pernicious or damaging information at the same time. With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns. Like immune-deficient patients, children are wide open to mental infections that adults might brush off without effort.

I believe this field is extremely important for most politics, but as the issue of religion and communism come up, I wonder why this isn't a more popular idea among leftist, and is instead confined to the theories of transhumanist.

More from Dawkins:
I have already alluded to the programmed-in gullibility of a child, so useful for learning language and traditional wisdom, and so easily subverted by nuns, Moonies and their ilk. More generally, we all exchange information with one another. We don't exactly plug floppy disks into slots in one another's skulls, but we exchange sentences, both through our ears and through our eyes. We notice each other's styles of moving and dressing and are influenced. We take in advertising jingles, and are presumably persuaded by them, otherwise hard-headed businessmen would not spend so much money polluting the air with them.
Think about the two qualities that a virus, or any sort of parasitic replicator, demands of a friendly medium,. the two qualities that make cellular machinery so friendly towards parasitic DNA, and that make computers so friendly towards computer viruses. These qualities are, firstly, a readiness to replicate information accurately, perhaps with some mistakes that are subsequently reproduced accurately; and, secondly, a readiness to obey instructions encoded in the information so replicated.

Interesting to think that capitalism, unconsciously spreads itself like this. Does that mean if leftist were to grab a better control over this field that we'd be able to influence society as well?

redstar2000
8th July 2004, 14:09
In my opinion, it's "junk science"...an intellectual fad rather than an accurate description of reality.

Dawkins is one of the most recent developers of a concept that goes back to the days of Darwin himself: the reason that anything exists is because it is more "fit" in evolutionary terms than any conceivable alternative.

In other words, capitalist ideology is "superior" (from the evolutionary standpoint) to communist ideology and that's "why" it won out in the USSR, China, etc.

This kind of word-play is completely divorced from material reality; it treats ideas as "independent entities" that struggle among themselves for evolutionary "victory".

It's total crapola.

The Darwinian paradigm is about biology period. It is not relevant to other matters.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

Floyd.
8th July 2004, 15:08
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 02:09 PM
In my opinion, it's "junk science"...an intellectual fad rather than an accurate description of reality.

Dawkins is one of the most recent developers of a concept that goes back to the days of Darwin himself: the reason that anything exists is because it is more "fit" in evolutionary terms than any conceivable alternative.

In other words, capitalist ideology is "superior" (from the evolutionary standpoint) to communist ideology and that's "why" it won out in the USSR, China, etc.

This kind of word-play is completely divorced from material reality; it treats ideas as "independent entities" that struggle among themselves for evolutionary "victory".

It's total crapola.

The Darwinian paradigm is about biology period. It is not relevant to other matters.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
I never do this but I'm going to isult someone, you absolute dick redstar. Memes or the study of memetics as it is better known is a well established belief system even within the mainstream science community, they are what sets us apart from other animals, writing and language are broad examples of memetics the best one and most apt is probably religion. It is a cultural trend/superstition/belief system passed on from generation to generation. We have our collective memory not from just what we've experienced but what others have passed to/taught us, this is largely because of memetics. The only stupid thing about it is that it tends to lean towards irrational superstition. Memes are however hardly a new discovery nor idea and are certainly not "junk science".

Umoja
8th July 2004, 18:28
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 02:09 PM
In my opinion, it's "junk science"...an intellectual fad rather than an accurate description of reality.

Dawkins is one of the most recent developers of a concept that goes back to the days of Darwin himself: the reason that anything exists is because it is more "fit" in evolutionary terms than any conceivable alternative.

In other words, capitalist ideology is "superior" (from the evolutionary standpoint) to communist ideology and that's "why" it won out in the USSR, China, etc.

This kind of word-play is completely divorced from material reality; it treats ideas as "independent entities" that struggle among themselves for evolutionary "victory".

It's total crapola.

The Darwinian paradigm is about biology period. It is not relevant to other matters.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

In other words, capitalist ideology is "superior" (from the evolutionary standpoint) to communist ideology and that's "why" it won out in the USSR, China, etc.


I disagree. Capitalism is able to spread faster then Communism, that's why it's been so readily accepted around the world. I'm not sure how one would define "superior", but capitalism is more infectious of a meme.


This kind of word-play is completely divorced from material reality; it treats ideas as "independent entities" that struggle among themselves for evolutionary "victory".

That's not true, because ideas constantly evolve and mutate to best fit their enviornment. Why do you think that the few "communist" states all had different interpretations? Also, it can explain why languages have a tendency to diverge instead of converge. Besides, is evolution really about reaching perfection or just adapting to ones enviornment?

Umoja
9th July 2004, 01:47
"MEMETIC DRIFT: Accumulated mis-replications; (the rate of) memetic mutation or evolution. Written texts tend to slow the memetic drift of dogmas (Henson)."

Marxist-Leninist agree on many things on this board. The common thread is the Communist Manifesto. Most of the other leftist on this board have trouble agreeing with anything. That's memetic drift for you. No written medium means we have problems transmitting the information on "communism" or "socialism" properly.

DaCuBaN
9th July 2004, 01:53
I'm not sure I can call this 'science' from what you have posted... If you have any links to something other than a simple analogy that 'everything is just like nature' then please do post away


Interesting to think that capitalism, unconsciously spreads itself like this. Does that mean if leftist were to grab a better control over this field that we'd be able to influence society as well?

If the analogy is accurate, then this would certainly be the case - You go off brainwashing kids into communism, and I'll sit here on my moral highground. :lol:

Umoja
9th July 2004, 02:06
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 01:53 AM
I'm not sure I can call this 'science' from what you have posted... If you have any links to something other than a simple analogy that 'everything is just like nature' then please do post away



If the analogy is accurate, then this would certainly be the case - You go off brainwashing kids into communism, and I'll sit here on my moral highground. :lol:
I believe Richard Dawkins devoted the last chapter of his book, "The Selfish Gene" too the concept of memes. He's behind the theory of them, I haven't read the book though. I'm not sure what proof you require though, it's a psychological theory, it's like trying to prove psychoanalysis science (unless there actually is a way to prove it that I'm not aware of).


If the analogy is accurate, then this would certainly be the case - You go off brainwashing kids into communism, and I'll sit here on my moral highground. :lol:

If you look at all successful ideas, they've been successful at transmitting themselves. The best examples would be language and religion. I doubt we could ever come up with anything that transmits itself as well as language of course, but doesn't language brainwash kids? Is that considered a bad thing?

The entire point of memetics is that all ideas try to spread themselves from person to person. Capitalism has found a way to do that, and regardless of how practical it is, it has been succesful. Communist need to find a way to make their ideas spread better. Call it brainwashing if you want, but it's how ideas work.

DaCuBaN
9th July 2004, 02:45
Sorry... I was a poor attempt at satire.


doesn't language brainwash kids? Is that considered a bad thing?

Yes it does, and yes I do consider it a bad thing. I'm one of these 'crazy nuts' who thinks we should all be learning Esperanto ;)


I'm not sure what proof you require though, it's a psychological theory, it's like trying to prove psychoanalysis science

Yes, but the point I'm making is that the evidence for the analogy is circumstancial. Capitalism has flourished due to many reasons - almost all can be summarised through lies, deceipt and barbarism. These are not how I would envisage my 'utopian dream' to be conceived

Umoja
9th July 2004, 03:29
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 02:45 AM
Sorry... I was a poor attempt at satire.



Yes it does, and yes I do consider it a bad thing. I'm one of these 'crazy nuts' who thinks we should all be learning Esperanto ;)



Yes, but the point I'm making is that the evidence for the analogy is circumstancial. Capitalism has flourished due to many reasons - almost all can be summarised through lies, deceipt and barbarism. These are not how I would envisage my 'utopian dream' to be conceived

Yes it does, and yes I do consider it a bad thing. I'm one of these 'crazy nuts' who thinks we should all be learning Esperanto ;)

Mi amas esperanton or was it Esperanton amas mi? haha.


Yes, but the point I'm making is that the evidence for the analogy is circumstancial. Capitalism has flourished due to many reasons - almost all can be summarised through lies, deceipt and barbarism. These are not how I would envisage my 'utopian dream' to be conceived

But regardless, capitalism has spread. People like capitalism, people defend capitalism. The reasons may be irrational, but when you are infected by a certain meme you generally like it. The same could be said for any leftist, except we aren't good at spreading our meme.

synthesis
9th July 2004, 05:46
The reason it's probably unpopular among far leftists is because it is philosophically idealist, as opposed to materialist, which is what almost all of us are or at least would consider ourselves.

The theory of an 'ideosphere' is an idea that attracts idealists, whereas the theory that our thoughts are simply electromagnetic impulses appeals to materialists.

Either way, I'm unimpressed. Sounds like more pseudoscience.

Umoja
9th July 2004, 11:55
It doesn't really matter "what" our thoughts are. You have electromagnetic impulses as too what a proper economic system is... right?

Edit:

And more too the point, languages do evolve.

redstar2000
11th July 2004, 02:51
I never do this but I'm going to insult someone, you absolute dick redstar.

Awww...I caused you to break your "perfect record". :lol:


Memes or the study of memetics as it is better known is a well established belief system even within the mainstream science community.

From time to time the "mainstream science community" has accepted paradigms which turned out to be trash.

But I don't think that phenomenon is even involved in this question; I flatly dispute your contention that "memetics" is of any interest at all to most working scientists.

The pretense of "memetics" is that of a "meta-science"...a paradigm that purports to explain the spread of ideas in terms of "evolutionary fitness".

It's a metaphor...not an "explanation" of anything!

You can't deduce anything from it except "ideas are successful because...they are successful".

Bullshit.


The entire point of memetics is that all ideas try to spread themselves from person to person.

Do they indeed? Just like genes, eh?

Except genes are quasi-living entities...ideas are not. Ideas can't "try" to do anything.

Ideas are passing combinations of electro-chemical activities in a human brain...they have no material existence unless a human decides to attempt to alter material reality in line with his/her ideas.

As it happens, I have read Dawkins. His militant atheism is admirable. His biology is unexceptionable...though his "selfish gene" twist on things has been disputed. His social/political views are generally reactionary...he at least implies that ruling class people really "are" genetically "superior".

But "memetics" is just nonsense.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

Umoja
11th July 2004, 03:41
The pretense of "memetics" is that of a "meta-science"...a paradigm that purports to explain the spread of ideas in terms of "evolutionary fitness".

It's a metaphor...not an "explanation" of anything!

It's a way of viewing ideas. I doubt anything psychological is anything more then a metaphor since most sciences are material sciences, or at least deal with the material world. The human mind seems to stand as an exception to many other things scientific.


Except genes are quasi-living entities...ideas are not. Ideas can't "try" to do anything.

Ideas are passing combinations of electro-chemical activities in a human brain...they have no material existence unless a human decides to attempt to alter material reality in line with his/her ideas.

I disagree. As I said before languages do evolve, that's undisputable. So how can a language not present itself as an example of memes? Even more so, since Memetics is a way of viewing how these electrical impulses work, I don't see how that disproves anything. Ideas don't have a material existence, which is why Dawkins and others theorize about a "biosphere" and a seperate "ideaosphere".



As it happens, I have read Dawkins. His militant atheism is admirable. His biology is unexceptionable...though his "selfish gene" twist on things has been disputed. His social/political views are generally reactionary...he at least implies that ruling class people really "are" genetically "superior".

And ofcourse is a scientist doesn't share your political views, they clearly can't be trusted to provide reliable information.

redstar2000
12th July 2004, 02:47
And of course if a scientist doesn't share your political views, they clearly can't be trusted to provide reliable information.

I'm not aware that most scientists "share my political views"...but, you're right. When a scientist does start drawing "social conclusions", that does get my attention. And if the conclusions are "bad ones" in my view, then yes, I begin to question sharply the scientific work that supposedly justifies those views.

What's wrong with that?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

Umoja
12th July 2004, 03:24
What's wrong with that?

The ruling class is "superior" in their own economic system, I don't see why that view should be disputed. I realize that any view that doesn't create Marxism as the ideal economic system must offend you, but that doesn't make the idea bad for communist to adopt.

So I guess your 'fault' is being overly dogmatic with your Marxism. Maybe a capitalist sociologist can be correct. But I'm going off topic.

Don't Change Your Name
13th July 2004, 00:52
Interesting. I guess the truth is something like this:

Ideas will only "infect" a mind if material conditions and experiences allow that mind to accept them as some kind of fact.

I don't know if you get what I mean.

synthesis
13th July 2004, 03:06
Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 12 2004, 05:52 PM
Interesting. I guess the truth is something like this:

Ideas will only "infect" a mind if material conditions and experiences allow that mind to accept them as some kind of fact.

I don't know if you get what I mean.
I like that. It's succinct.

Umoja
14th July 2004, 19:51
Can you give me an example, I'm not sure if I fully comprehend.

Don't Change Your Name
15th July 2004, 00:47
Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 07:51 PM
Can you give me an example, I'm not sure if I fully comprehend.
For example, some rich man who was born rich might tell another one (with a simmilar economical situation and background) that "all niggers should be killed because they are the shit of our society". Both might have had their cars stolen by poor black men and maybe they heard simmilar experiences from other people about black people. So the one who listened the other one telling him that, if he didnt really concentrate on all his previous experiences with black people might start accepting it as a fact. From then on maybe he starts meeting black people and he might not get along well with them so he will start thinking that what the other one told him is the truth. So he will become a racist that will spread his crap around. If he would have had black friends instead and most black people he knew was "nice", he will not accept that idea and might start a discussion with the other man.

Something like that happens if someone tells you that "war is good" and you for example lost all your family and friends during a war and got shot, and your house was destroyed, etc.

I hope this simple examples make it clearer.

Raisa
15th July 2004, 07:40
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 08:19 PM
Taken from Anders Transhumanism Page (http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Cultural/Memetics/index.html#THEORY)

Memetics is the study of ideas and concepts viewed as "living" organisms, capable of reproduction and evolution in an "Ideosphere" (similar to the Biosphere) consisting of the collective of human minds. Memes reproduce by spreading to new hosts, who will spread them further (typical examples are jokes, catchphrases or politicial ideas).

At present memetics is somewhat controversial. Partly this is due to misunderstandings about what it means, leading to claims that it excludes human free will, creativity and progress, and that it is bad science. This will likely change in time, as the field matures.

Taken from Viruses of the Mind by Richard Dawkins:

A human child is shaped by evolution to soak up the culture of her people. Most obviously, she learns the essentials of their language in a matter of months. A large dictionary of words to speak, an encyclopedia of information to speak about, complicated syntactic and semantic rules to order the speaking, are all transferred from older brains into hers well before she reaches half her adult size. When you are pre-programmed to absorb useful information at a high rate, it is hard to shut out pernicious or damaging information at the same time. With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns. Like immune-deficient patients, children are wide open to mental infections that adults might brush off without effort.

I believe this field is extremely important for most politics, but as the issue of religion and communism come up, I wonder why this isn't a more popular idea among leftist, and is instead confined to the theories of transhumanist.

More from Dawkins:
I have already alluded to the programmed-in gullibility of a child, so useful for learning language and traditional wisdom, and so easily subverted by nuns, Moonies and their ilk. More generally, we all exchange information with one another. We don't exactly plug floppy disks into slots in one another's skulls, but we exchange sentences, both through our ears and through our eyes. We notice each other's styles of moving and dressing and are influenced. We take in advertising jingles, and are presumably persuaded by them, otherwise hard-headed businessmen would not spend so much money polluting the air with them.
Think about the two qualities that a virus, or any sort of parasitic replicator, demands of a friendly medium,. the two qualities that make cellular machinery so friendly towards parasitic DNA, and that make computers so friendly towards computer viruses. These qualities are, firstly, a readiness to replicate information accurately, perhaps with some mistakes that are subsequently reproduced accurately; and, secondly, a readiness to obey instructions encoded in the information so replicated.

Interesting to think that capitalism, unconsciously spreads itself like this. Does that mean if leftist were to grab a better control over this field that we'd be able to influence society as well?
I think its rediculous. It has nothing to do with whats freewill and whats not or anything. Its just that ideas are the results of organisms, they are no equivilant.

Umoja
16th July 2004, 03:37
Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 15 2004, 12:47 AM
For example, some rich man who was born rich might tell another one (with a simmilar economical situation and background) that "all niggers should be killed because they are the shit of our society". Both might have had their cars stolen by poor black men and maybe they heard simmilar experiences from other people about black people. So the one who listened the other one telling him that, if he didnt really concentrate on all his previous experiences with black people might start accepting it as a fact. From then on maybe he starts meeting black people and he might not get along well with them so he will start thinking that what the other one told him is the truth. So he will become a racist that will spread his crap around. If he would have had black friends instead and most black people he knew was "nice", he will not accept that idea and might start a discussion with the other man.

Something like that happens if someone tells you that "war is good" and you for example lost all your family and friends during a war and got shot, and your house was destroyed, etc.

I hope this simple examples make it clearer.
I agree. Material conditions do reduce your immunity to certain ideas. Or maybe the social expression of a meme becomes more relevant in certain situations.