On memes and genes

[Carl Jung]

I have long since understood that the Meme-theory is an unfalsifiable metaphysical story which seems non-sensical to me as the fact that "bits of information" would in fact compete for survival in the same way as genes do.

In such a view-point truth becomes useless. All of our "benchmarks" are mere illusions as all that matters is that the "bits of information" is good at surviving and reproducing.

And of course - there is also the problem that we don't understand how the "bit of information" gets transported - as we do in the gene-theory.

But lately I have come to understand that the Selfish Gene is also a metaphysical story - albeit perhaps a bit more believeable.

The problem with absolutist reading of the gene-theory is that if we are mere machines for propagating DNA (and that is the one and whole truth of the organism) then we also have no reason to believe truth as being anything but the subjective view of another competitor for rescources.

And of course, in this world of quarks and leptons, what is to say that the level of the Gene is the only possible level of understanding evolution?

I must say that the more I read of Dawkins and Dennet, especially - the more I see them as nothing more than reactionaries against religion...

Does anyone agree?

[David Bailey]

Rupert Sheldrake has quite a bit to say about Darwinian theory, and his point is that try as they may, even the most hard-nosed Darwinians (Dawkins!) end up attributing motives and purpose to the very structures that they claim prove the opposite! RS points out that when challenged, Dawkins will claim this is only by way of an analogy, but maybe these analogies lend a spurious plausibility to the theory!

Darwinian theory must be partly true, the real question is how much of life it actually explains. The theory seems to become very tenuous when applied to details of behaviour, because the causal chain between a change on a strand of DNA and a useful change in behaviour must be very long indeed!

David

[gabriel]

Memes are a branch of semiotics. They are an abstraction to explain what might happen in language codes. Memes have no currency in genetics, they are a convenience on a par with Sheldrake's morphic resonance which attracts much more flak.

[gabriel]

Originally Posted by Carl Jung

I must say that the more I read of Dawkins and Dennet, especially - the more I see them as nothing more than reactionaries against religion...

Does anyone agree?

Dawkins is even more focused. He wants the cultural trappings of the Church of England without any associated beliefs. Lots of privilege, deference and certainty with none of the responsibilities.

[FallingLeaf]

The thinking behind memes is very revealing. No empirical evidence whatsoever. No theoretical requirement whatsoever. No *reason* to believe they exist: no one has ever experienced nor seen a meme nor nor do we know what it would look like. What is the nature of these entities and - importantly - how do they interact with ordinary matter? This opens the dreaded door to Cartesian dualism.

And what of the evidence? This: "NO EXISTENCE PROOF IS REQUIRED...as long as you admit that imitation occurs, they must exist" (Blackmore, 'Can memes get off the leash?' in Aunger eds. 'Darwinizing Culture', Oxford 2001...capitals mine). In other words, memes = imitation. Then why not use Occam's razor and simply use 'imitation'?

But then there is a further problem: as Dennett admits, human minds are nothing like photocopying machines, ideas are very rarely left unchanged, except in people with autism and only if the statements are literal as reported with empirical evidence (Atran 2006).

It's amazing how credulous some people can get when a certain idea suits their metaphysics. People who ought to know better.

[Carl Jung]

I really liked Dawkins back in the 80s - but I must say that he makes a little sense to me as the religious fundamentalists these days. There is no way to speak to a person who knows he has THE truth - and that goes for Ultra-Darwinists as well as conservative fundamentalists.

In Dawkins perspective Ethics, Aesthetics and the history of Ideas are useless things as they are by necessity illusions that we invent (for what purpose one might ask??) in order to make sense of reality.

Not just the "Why" questions but all questions that can't be codified in genes or memes are useless illusions - just as the very same questions are "de-mystified" by the religious by invoking God.

I think the need to demystify the mysteries of existence through metaphysical stories are what binds them both together and what makes them so similar in my mind.

[Arouet]

This article seems pretty relevant to this thread:

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/...2/POSC_a_00057

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaf

And what of the evidence? This: "NO EXISTENCE PROOF IS REQUIRED...as long as you admit that imitation occurs, they must exist"

Perhaps no evidence is required. None is required for evolution, as Marvin Minsky has pointed out:

Originally Posted by Marvin Minsky

The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:

There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.

Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:

THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment.

Most everyone buys the premises to this proof when it comes to evolution of life. The question is, do we buy the premises for memes?

~~ Paul

[Carl Jung]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Perhaps no evidence is required. None is required for evolution, as Marvin Minsky has pointed out:


Most everyone buys the premises to this proof when it comes to evolution of life. The question is, do we buy the premises for memes?

~~ Paul

The meme theory seems hopeless in the same way a totally Gene-centered variant of evolution does. Intentions do not exist in genes.

May I ask why you can accept evolution as being true a priori? In that philosophy would be un-problematic as well.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Carl Jung

The meme theory seems hopeless in the same way a totally Gene-centered variant of evolution does. Intentions do not exist in genes.

What does intentionality have to do with it?

May I ask why you can accept evolution as being true a priori? In that philosophy would be un-problematic as well.

Because I think that the premises of Minsky's proof are all true. Don't you? Note that he proves that evolution will occur on Earth, but not that it will necessary result in life as we know it today. For example, there might not have been enough time. But I see no evidence in support of any other mechanism, so I'll go with evolution.

~~ Paul