an introduction to memetics
Jul. 20th, 2004 01:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaUniversal Darwinism: the idea that genetics is just one instance of a more universal kind of "replicator algorithm." An algorithm is a simple set of steps that, when followed faithfully, will produce a given result. A replicator is an automaton following a set of simple steps that result in a reasonably accurate copy of itself. If there are small changes every time a replicator makes a copy of itself, then different versions of the replicator will compete for survival, as resources for replication eventually become scarce.
The replicator algorithm sets in motion a chaotic process, wherein accidental changes made to copies of the replicator affect its ability to further reproduce. Changes that give benefits to the replicator's phenotype make that version of the replicator more likely to pass on than those without the new benefit. Thus, accidental benefits tend to accrue in the replicator pool. This is the process of natural selection.
The word "meme" was coined by Richard Dawkins in 1976. It was shortened from "mimeme," or "unit of imitation."
What makes memes possible is the fact that humans are excellent all-purpose imitators. Imitation is an extremely difficult skill, as Blackmore demonstrates:
According to the memetic theory, the human brain hosts many memes, which interact in various ways, sometimes in cooperation, sometimes in conflict. Memes are replicated when they are passed from one person to the next; Blackmore suggests that humans developed language and larger brains primarily to increase the fidelity and fecundity of meme replication.
This theory dovetails with theories of consciousness such as those developed by Daniel Dennett and William Calvin, who argue that the development of thought and consciousness within the human brain follows a process analogous to Darwinian selection.
The replicator algorithm sets in motion a chaotic process, wherein accidental changes made to copies of the replicator affect its ability to further reproduce. Changes that give benefits to the replicator's phenotype make that version of the replicator more likely to pass on than those without the new benefit. Thus, accidental benefits tend to accrue in the replicator pool. This is the process of natural selection.
The word "meme" was coined by Richard Dawkins in 1976. It was shortened from "mimeme," or "unit of imitation."
What makes memes possible is the fact that humans are excellent all-purpose imitators. Imitation is an extremely difficult skill, as Blackmore demonstrates:
Suppose I put my hands to my mouth in a trumpet-like shape, point them upwards and hum "de-tum-de-tum." I would bet that, unless you were physically unable, you would have little trouble in copying me -- and that people watching would agree on whether you managed a good performance or not. What is so difficult about that?
First, you... have to decide which aspects of the action are to be copied -- does the angle of your leg matter? or the position of your feet? Is it more important that your hands look something like a trumpet or that the exact position is as close as possible to my version of a trumpet? Must your humming be in the same key, or only follow the same melody? ... Having decided on the important aspects to be copied, a very difficult set of transformations has to be effected. You watched me, let's say, from the side. Nothing you saw of my actions will correspond to the way the actions will look from your perspective when you carry them out yourself. ... Somehow your brain has to create a transformation of the action I did that will enable it to instruct your muscles to do whatever they have to do to get your action to look like mine to someone else. (The Meme Machine, p. 51-2)
According to the memetic theory, the human brain hosts many memes, which interact in various ways, sometimes in cooperation, sometimes in conflict. Memes are replicated when they are passed from one person to the next; Blackmore suggests that humans developed language and larger brains primarily to increase the fidelity and fecundity of meme replication.
This theory dovetails with theories of consciousness such as those developed by Daniel Dennett and William Calvin, who argue that the development of thought and consciousness within the human brain follows a process analogous to Darwinian selection.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-20 12:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-20 08:34 pm (UTC)In my post I mentioned Blackmore, Calvin, and Dennett, who are all opposed to the idea of quantum consciousness because they consider consciousness and even "the self" to be memetic illusions built solely for propagating memes. I have a hard time agreeing with this. For one thing, I do not think that consciousness being "real" is incompatible with memetic evolution.
On the page I linked to, there are articles about the early universe possibly having a moment of conscious awareness (which they call "the Big Wow") and the idea that life itself is a kind of "superconductor" that guides biochemicals rather than leaving their interactions to chance.
This would all fit in with what Greg Bear is saying in his essay. This would also, I think, increase the likelihood that memetic theory is valid -- even if it is not based on the idea of a "selfish replicator" as its primary proponents seem to feel.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-20 09:22 pm (UTC)" A psychedelic hallucinogen (P) acts in hydrophobic pocket in critical brain protein to promote and sustain superposition, 'expanding' consciousness (see Figure 25)."
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/slide%20show/slideshow_6.htm
no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 06:12 pm (UTC)The book Sync: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order by Steven Strogatz is quite possibly yet another face. He presents that as complexity increases, spontaneous order is a natural outcome - for both animate and inanimate systems. Personally, I don't have any problem believing in any number of these theories. We're just so completely clueless when it all comes down to it. Humans are practically infants in this line of questioning, but I do think that the consciousness that we possess *is* helping us speed our evolution. But the question is - are we speeding in the right direction? Memes are only really concerned about replication, not necessarily the health of the system. Blah - I am babbling, but sheesh, this hits a lot of topics... Exhilerating. *grin*
no subject
Date: 2004-07-22 10:42 am (UTC)Yeah, there are aspects of the theory as promoted by Dennett, Dawkins, and Blackmore with which I disagree. I'm going to write a post about that. But what it comes down to is that they are "eliminative materialists" who claim that since there is no neural correlate (which we know of) to consciousness, that it is a memetic illusion. It seems far too early to make a decisive stance on such an important matter.
The idea of memetics does not rest on the idea that the self is a memetic illusion. That aspect of the theory as presented could turn out to be wrong, without making the theory tumble.
If you want to read something fascinating about quantum consciousness, here's another book for the wish list: The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force by Jeffrey Schwartz. More about this in my forthcoming entry... (sorry to be a tease)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 05:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-20 01:56 pm (UTC)Lacanian (http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/lacweb.htm) psychoanalysis (http://www.livejournal.com/users/anosognosia/29607.html#cutid1) holds that mental life proceeds along three axes or Registers: the Real (http://www.sla.purdue.edu/academic/engl/theory/psychoanalysis/definitions/real.html), Imaginary (http://www.sla.purdue.edu/academic/engl/theory/psychoanalysis/definitions/imaginaryorder.html), and Symbolic (http://www.sla.purdue.edu/academic/engl/theory/psychoanalysis/definitions/symbolicorder.html).
The Imaginary is established as a primary way of interpreting the Real during a mythic event called the mirror stage (http://www.sla.purdue.edu/academic/engl/theory/psychoanalysis/definitions/mirrorstage.html). In experience, the Imaginary is characterized by direct identification ("He is like me") and in communication, by imitation ("I am like him").
The Symbolic is then established from the Imaginary during the mythic event of castration (http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/lacweb.htm#The%20Oedipal%20Complex,%20Castration,%20The%20Name%20of%20the%20Father,%20and%20the%20Big%20Other). Symbolic experience and communication is characterized by implicit pacts that provide a framework for situating others as other-than being "just like the self."
In any case, the interest here is that Imaginary interaction (imitation) universally underlies all interaction, as it provides the initial substance of meaning and self-other distinction, which only - once established - may be parsed into more complicated relationships.
In any case; Lacan is notoriously dense but perhaps it is interesting to see some of the potential applications of his throught to meme theory.
His repetition automatism (http://www.guidetopsychology.com/death.htm#2) may be of related interest.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-20 04:05 pm (UTC)Any of the Structuralists would probably be of help when examining memetics -- Lacan and Claude Levi-Strauss being just two examples who come to mind.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-20 04:50 pm (UTC)This reminds me that there are some remarks in the Lacanian corpus about a mystic psychic structure (in addition to psychotic, neurotic and pervert)... I'll have figure them out some day.
(ew... damn gross underlining)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-20 06:32 pm (UTC)Are you doing some sort of formal study on memetics or is this just a personal interest? One of the things I like most about memes is that it's one of those lines of inquiry that has implications across dozens of boundaries. You can use the concepts to talk about neurology, cultural anthropology, social criticism, and ugh - advertising among other things.
My first book on memes was Virus of the Mind by Richard Brodie. It's a great overview of the whole concept of memes, but it deals mostly with pop culture and how companies try to engineer ideas that will self perpetuate. Hmm... I may re-read that since it's been a while.
Anyway, the best book on memes that I've read is called Spiral Dynamics by Don Beck. Fabulous book - a little textbook-y, but remarkable in it's ideas. It deals with the idea of MetaMemes or groups of memes that operate together in society and how groups of people (tribes, countries, or organizations like companies) shift from one set of metamemes to the next.
AAAnyway... feed me some book suggestions if ya got 'em and thanks for the chatting about it...
no subject
Date: 2004-07-20 08:14 pm (UTC)I haven't read either of the books you mentioned. Currently I am reading The Meme Machine by Susan Blackmore, which makes an excellent case (even while perhaps simplifying or glossing in places, which I suppose any author would have to do with such a complex topic).
I'll match your book recommendations with books on related topics: The Alphabet Versus the Goddess by Leonard Shlain, and Why God Won't Go Away by Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquili. Neither deals directly with memes, per se, but both deal with the way culture has affected the development of the human brain.
Shlain suggests that the advent of alphabetical literacy aggravated the pattern of sexism.
Newberg and D'Aquili focus on the way the brain and certain key functionality it possesses guided the development of early religion.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-20 09:48 pm (UTC)As for Why God Won't Go Away - thanks for that too. I haven't really done much exploration on the brain development side of things, except where it crops up in some of the other things I've been reading.
Oh and while typing this, I happened to glance over at your list of links and Ho ho ho! What an interesting collection of oddities... Gnosis *and* Buckyballs *and* Alchemy to boot. Pardon me while I sponge off your references for a while...
no subject
Date: 2004-07-20 09:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-21 12:32 am (UTC)Also, there are two ideas present here, the idea of meme as a form of behaviour, and the idea of memetic acquisition as the acquistion of a belief, which seem to be two different categories. That is, it's not clear to me why I need language to imitate you air-trumpeting. Does Blackmore talk more on how the transition is made between purely behavioural memes to other types of memes?
part one
Date: 2004-07-21 10:05 am (UTC)That grammar and language acquisition is innate rather than learned is not in question. Not only that, but anatomical changes had to occur for language to be possible -- changes to the lungs, larynx, and brain.
Blackmore's argument is that memes have been around long enough to have influenced human genetic evolution, by influencing natural selection pressures in such a way that people who were better imitators had an increased likelihood of mating.
Blackmore addresses Chomsky by citing a critique of him by Pinker and Bloom from 1990, wherein they attack Chomsky's denial of language as a product of natural selection. Linguistic ability requires specific physical characteristics, and as yet there is no theory other than natural selection (or creationism) that can explain how physical characteristics would get to be how they are.
At this point I have to confess I am at a loss because, to my detriment, I have not read Chomsky (if only there were more hours in the day!).
Blackmore dismisses explanations for language given by evolutionary sociobiology by asserting that language does not serve a clear evolutionary advantage (in genetic terms). I don't know enough about the topic (yet) to evaluate this argument.
Re: part one
Date: 2004-07-21 06:31 pm (UTC)Interesting. I'd have to read that critique, but as far as I understand Chomsky (and I'm not an expert), he's not stating that language got started by extra-evolutionary means, but rather that it's a by-product of other things being selected for. This makes sense to me -- how do you select for language when you have none? It's not like evolution is saying, 'wow, if these apes could talk, we'd really have something here.'
It's kind of like mathematics -- humans seem to be pretty good at mathematics, and solving mathematical theorems (although we won't really know until we encounter anohter math-using race how good we are), but there is certainly no gene that was ever selected for 'solving mathematical theorems.' I think Chomsky sees language the same way.
Re: part one
Date: 2004-07-22 05:02 am (UTC)Seeing cultural evolution in Lamarck's terms rather than Darwin's might be fruitful here.
Regarding the main point, I don't think we need to presume any evolutionary age for memes in order to imagine that our genetics followed meme-like principles, since that analogy of meme to gene behavior is already established. (Personally, I do not agree that memes predate language; but certainly imitation and propagation of imitation did, so perhaps this is but a confusion of semantics.)
Re: part one
Date: 2004-07-22 10:13 am (UTC)This is the same problem that we are faced with when asking how it came about that so many creatures are able to fly.
So, presumably a set of adaptations occurred which accidentally opened the door for linguistic development.
part two
Date: 2004-07-21 10:14 am (UTC)I'm not entirely certain I understand your objection. How could a distinction between behavioral memes and linguistic memes affect the overall theory? Whether I copy your air-trumpeting, or repeat a story you've told me, I am imitating you.
Perhaps this matter could be addressed by examining memes as carriers of semiotic meaning. Air-trumpeting is one kind of sign. A story is another kind of sign. I do not see that the fact that a story is a more complex kind of sign that engages different parts of the brain does not make it different in kind from air-trumpeting.
To turn that on its head, a linguistic meme, such as a story, is a sequence of behaviors involving the lungs, larynx, tongue, and lips; or involving the eyes and hands (if it is written).
Re: part two
Date: 2004-07-21 06:39 pm (UTC)I was probably unclear. We started with hands, arms, etc. that could be used for purely physical imitation. So there's nothing to that. I think what I left out was the assertion that a belief must essentially be linguistic in character if it to be passed down memetically. Some people might argue from some kind of intuitive belief, based on actions of others, so I could be wrong there.
But for sophisticated memes of belief to be passed down, beliefs that represent abstract concepts, you have to have a language already. What I hear Blackmore arguing is that language developed at least in part to help us do that, which just sounds strange. That is, I agree that there is no difference after you've already got a language. But to say evolutionarily language evolves so we can imitate each other linguistically makes sounds very question-begging.
To turn that on its head, a linguistic meme, such as a story, is a sequence of behaviors involving the lungs, larynx, tongue, and lips; or involving the eyes and hands (if it is written).
This is true, but that story won't mean much to a dog, martian, or (in the case of the stories you and I would tell) a Basque speaker. There has to be a pretty sophisticated receiving mechanism in place that can decipher all the concepts and meaning behind the sound waves the larynx, tongue and lips make, and a sophisticated rule based system for producing them. There are lots of things I could do with my lungs, larynx and so forth that would not be intelligible as language, or a sign at all, so it seems like there has to be some conceptual scheme, some grammer, built in before even those things become useful to us.
Re: part two
Date: 2004-07-22 10:27 am (UTC)To elaborate, once an early human used a word to represent a certain kind of object, and others learned the trick of using words to represent classes of objects, this idea would catch on very strongly because humans found it easy to replicate.
Bear in mind that most primates, and many other kinds of mammals, have enough capacity for abstract thought to do this. What humans possess that these other mammals do not is the capacity for all-purpose imitation.
Blackmore suggests that intelligence quotient became a factor in mate selection. Being someone who identifies as "sapiosexual," I certainly agree that intelligence is very attractive. If this is so, then humans became steadily more intelligent, and along with this intelligence increase, the "Deep Grammar" inherent in all of us would have evolved as well.
With or without memetics, the only way evolution can account for the development of language, pattern recognition, and intelligence, is to say that these abilities "ramped up" somehow. Blackmore's explanation for this sounds as good to me as any other alternative I've seen.