From: rhinoceros (rhinoceros@freemail.gr)
Date: Fri Aug 16 2002 - 08:47:13 MDT
[rhinoceros]
A while back, an article on memes by Susan Blackmore was mentioned here.
http://www.ukpoliticsmisc.org.uk/usenet_evidence/memes.htm
In that article, I noticed some points which seemed debatable to me. While thinking about the reactions generated by a recent post by Mermaid about an organization which systematically promotes a particular strain of memes
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=26078
I realized that even people who have suggested reading Blackmore's article seem to have strong objections to that in practice. The issue is how Blackmore's clarifications of what is and what is not a meme can justify the assertions found at the beginning and at the end of the article.
<Susan Blackmore on what is and what is not a meme>
Another problem is thinking that everything is a meme and therefore the whole idea is vacuous. This is easily avoided by relying on the simplest definition of a meme - 'that which is imitated' . Innate abilities and emotions are not memes, nor are those learned by classical or operant conditioning which almost all animals have. So if you learned something for yourself, by yourself, then it is not a meme. If you copied it from someone else then it is. Clearly not everything is a meme.
<snip>
More simply Dennett suggests that the meme is any unit that can be passed on with fidelity and fecundity. So if the first four notes of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony are passed on without all the rest, then they are a meme. If someone goes into a shop to buy a CD then the whole symphony is the relevant meme. Regardless of the size you choose to call a unit, the evolutionary algorithm will run and the memes will evolve. The unit problem is a red herring.
<snip>
There are, however, some interesting objections to memes, and some important controversies in the field of memetics. One concerns whether memes should be defined as being only inside heads, only outside heads - as in artifacts and behaviours, or both . There have been cogent arguments for all three but I personally think we are best, at this early stage of our understanding, to count copied information as a meme whichever form it comes in.
<end quotes>
[rhinoceros]
Apparently, in an justified effort to give a specific meaning and a scientific tangibility to the meme concept in order to get it past the interpretation as a metaphor, Blackmore (like Dawkins) is taking one of the possible approaches, the "memes are outside heads" approach, because emotions and ideas obtained through practice do not replicate or are not infectuous. Others, such as Robert Aunger in the "Electric Meme", take the opposite approach ("memes are inside heads"), focusing more on how this kind of memes work rather than their replicator nature.
Having said that, Susan Blackmore makes the following assertions:
<From the start of the article>
Without the theory of memes, human evolution makes no sense.
<From the end of the article>
The inner conscious self that has free will, and can rebel against the selfish replicators, is an illusion. The self is a memeplex created by and for the memes.
<snip>
If the theory of memetic drive is correct then this body here has been created by the combined replicator power of genes and memes. But what about the 'real me'? Just by calling this 'my body' and 'my brain' I seem to imply that 'I' am something else. Certainly it feels as though there is a self inside who owns this body and controls it - a conscious self who experiences the world and has creativity and free will. Do you feel this way too?
<snip>
If so you face a problem. Either you must accept the existence of a mysterious soul, spirit, or separate mind - with all the philosophical and scientific problems that poses - or you must reject it. But if you reject it, it is no good putting your head in the sand and saying 'the self just is the physical body' because it doesn't feel that way. You have explain why we are all deluded into this illusion of self that seems so much more than just the cells of our bodies.
<end quotes>
[rhinoceros]
That seems to be... well... not rigorous thinking. If one restricts the meme concept to replicated information, and excludes genetic traits, emotions, and ideas obtained through practice, the above claims about memes being solely accountable for the self do not seem so convincing.
Did I miss something?
---- This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=26127>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:53 MDT